re: #705 iceweasel

Dan, I did not ‘lie’; I expressed my (extremely unfavourable) opinion of Ayn Rand, and in particular her loathsome and juvenile excuse for an ‘ethical theory’. Yes, I have read the Virtue of Selfishness. I have also read many other things by her. I am quite familiar with Objectivism.

Your claim lies in direct contradiction with the central tenent of Objectivist ethics; you are lying.

You previously stated:

it pretends to find a a deep philosophical justification for taking what you want when you want from whoever you want,

Reconcile “taking what you want” with “trading”.

I suspect you have read less of Rand than I have.

Doubt it. And what you’ve read, you’ve obviously not comprehended. [Ad homminem #01]

You have not read widely enough, or deeply enough, in Rand if you think she is not making an argument against altruism.

She indeed is making an argument against altruism, which means living for others. I never stated that she was arguing for it. [Strawman #01]

Take a closer look at the paragraph you quoted— even it doesn’t support your claim. It explicitly calls on people to be self-sufficient; a corollary to that claim is that it is wrong to not be self-sufficient, and Rand most certainly does spin that, in that book and elsewhere, into the idea that it is wrong to encourage others not to be self-sufficient— that is, to help them.

Self sufficiency means that ones self is the primary care taker of oneself. It doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it is wrong to accept charity; just that it is wrong to go into life expecting that others will support you.

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”

[From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”]

So not only have you failed to understand Rand, you have not even understood the very paragraph you just cited.

Au contraire, it is worded quite clearly, you’ve added a twist that wasn’t there, effectively… [Strawman #02, directed at Ayn Rand]

I award you the grade of F for FAIL.

[churlish ad homminem #02]

Nice try, you can drop the patronising tone anytime you like; you are trapped in a lie.