If you start with a broken premise you end up with a broken conclusion/result ( garbage in = garbage out) . Ayn Rand did this.
ok, that's your opinion. but like i said earlier; i don't want to hijack this thread with an ayn rand discussion. if want to keep talking about her, you can pm me.
By 'drowned' I mean dead, d.o.a., just like Rand's attempts, literally, to justify the morality of greed selfishness and avarice. This was just an extension of the metaphor presented to me. If the idea is a bad one then throw it out.
do you realize you're the only one trying to have a conversation about her ethics? why? it's way off topic. you keep bring it up to me despite the fact that i didn't ask your opinion and it's totally irrelevant to the thread.
My ( studied) conclusions are valid about her writing and her politics and are supported by philosophers economists and ethicists. Do you r own research.
and what conclusions did you come to about her politics, specifically?
"philosophers economists and ethicists" have many different points of view, it doesn't make them correct, they're simply making their case. the difference between what philosophers economists and ethicists do, and what you do, is that they have a dialog, a structured argument explaining and defending their conclusions. you on the other hand... "Do you r own research."[sic] won't be winning any valid arguments like this.
I did not bring up Ayn Rand. JD did, and asked what was wrong with her [theories]
*yawn. you're wrong again.
i brought her up first: i linked her papers 'man's rights' and 'the nature of government'.
followed by you irrelevantly blurting out "Ayn Rand was a complete degenerate sociopath. here are some 'fun' quotes from her"
by the way, NONE of those "fun quotes" came from the two papers i linked.
Given her skill set, following her advice, is exactly like following the advice of LRon Hubbard on religion. Are you a scientologist?
come on dude! stay on topic.


