• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

Agree of Disagree ...discuss?

  • Total voters
    52
Guy Incognito said:
Scientology is a religion. Calling it a "scam" is no different than calling Catholicism a "scam." It's an insult to the good people who practice that religion.
Click to expand...

Religion is a scam. The way the Catholic Church runs, anyone associated with it ought to be insulted by the very fact they continue to be a member.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Scientology is a religion. Calling it a "scam" is no different than calling Catholicism a "scam." It's an insult to the good people who practice that religion.
Click to expand...
Just because someone is 'good', doesn't mean they can't be ignorant/gullible.


I have said many times:

All major religions (imo) are for the weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
All major religions (imo) are for the weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate.
Click to expand...

That kind of smug, self-satisfied attitude is for the weak and ignorant. And that's not merely my opinion, it is a fact.
 
RadicalModerate said:
types_of_libertarian1.png
Click to expand...

Thank Galt you posted that hysterically funny cartoon.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Guy, DA60, knock it off or be infracted. This thread is not about you two.
 
Cephus said:
Religion is a scam. The way the Catholic Church runs, anyone associated with it ought to be insulted by the very fact they continue to be a member.
Click to expand...

You miss the beauty of the forest because of the ugliness of some of the trees.

I know, these days is seems like many of the trees are ugly, twisted versions of 'Christianity'... but I'm an optimist.

I'm a Catholic. I don't listen to Rome and think they are behind the times. Hopefully God will set them straight. The priests and nuns that I've known were some of the most thoughtful, selfless and generous people I've ever had the privilege of meeting.
 
You simply cannot compare the founder of a religion like Hubbard to the founder of a philosophy like Rand. A philosophy is a system of ideas that are generally based on reason. Randianism is explicitly stated by Rand to be based on reason. Therefore you can attack it on rational grounds. Religions are not within the realm of rationality. Basic courtesy dictates that one should be polite and tolerant of other religions, even when one finds their tenets to be offensive for whatever reason.

Comparing a religion to a philosophy is an apples to oranges comparison.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You simply cannot compare the founder of a religion like Hubbard to the founder of a philosophy like Rand. A philosophy is a system of ideas that are generally based on reason. Randianism is explicitly stated by Rand to be based on reason. Therefore you can attack it on rational grounds. Religions are not within the realm of rationality. Basic courtesy dictates that one should be polite and tolerant of other religions, even when one finds their tenets to be offensive for whatever reason.

Comparing a religion to a philosophy is an apples to oranges comparison.
Click to expand...

WTF is Randianism? Its Objectivism. She abhored the notion of "Randists" or blind sheepish followers, cultists and the like.
 
Lachean said:
WTF is Randianism? Its Objectivism. She abhored the notion of "Randists" or blind sheepish followers, cultists and the like.
Click to expand...

"Objectivism" is a misnomer. It would be more accurate to call the philosophy "Subjectivism," since the only value it holds is the value of one's self.

I call it "Randianism" as an accurate descriptor of what it is. It's a dogmatic system of thought set forth by Ayn Rand.
 
hazlnut said:
You miss the beauty of the forest because of the ugliness of some of the trees.
Click to expand...

It's funny that so many people seem to think the forest is beautiful but can't explain why.

I know, these days is seems like many of the trees are ugly, twisted versions of 'Christianity'... but I'm an optimist.
Click to expand...

That's because Christianity, *ALL* of Christianity, is ugly and twisted. Whether or not you can find people within it that you like is irrelevant, the fact remains that Christianity, and every other religion out there, is entirely unable to demonstrate that it's most basic teachings or beliefs are factually true. Believers accept things for which there is no objective evidence, simply because it is emotionally satisfying.

Great, you feel good, but do you give a damn whether any of it is actually factually so?

I'm a Catholic. I don't listen to Rome and think they are behind the times.
Click to expand...

According to many then, you're not a Catholic. Of course, I don't think you care, nor should you, I just always find it funny that people can declare themselves to belong to a particular group, then disagree with everything that makes said group matter.

Hopefully God will set them straight.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that God exists, so chances are low.

The priests and nuns that I've known were some of the most thoughtful, selfless and generous people I've ever had the privilege of meeting.
Click to expand...

And this makes the religion worthwhile how? You have thoughtful, selfless and generous people, who would be exactly the same if they were part of the church or not, and that somehow makes the church true? What about all the priests that have molested children? Does that influence your beliefs in the truthfulness of the Catholic Church at all?
 
Objectivists and Scientologists are both cultish and operating on a false premise and not truth. That is the common thread of the juxtapostion in the OP.

Freakin' funny clip below.

[video]http://www.cracked.com/video_18426_ayn-rand-5Bplaceholder5D.html[/video]
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
"Objectivism" is a misnomer. It would be more accurate to call the philosophy "Subjectivism," since the only value it holds is the value of one's self.
Click to expand...

Thats a non-sequitur, also Objectivism is in complete opposition to subjectivism.

Guy Incognito said:
I call it "Randianism" as an accurate descriptor of what it is. It's a dogmatic system of thought set forth by Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

And I prefer to call a philosophy by the label given to it by the Philosopher. Dogmatic how? Its in complete opposition to faith and entirely based on reason.

Please cite a fallacy in the reasoning of Objectivism. If you even understand it at all that is.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Decent?

Imo, it was a 1000+ page rambling, nonsensical, bore fest.

The movie was beyond horrific.

And Scientology is a joke beyond compare.

L.Ron Hubbard was a brilliant, emotionally disturbed, vindictive whackjob.
Click to expand...

shrug...

To each his own.

I enjoyed the novel.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, it's not. Selfishness is the only applicable word. Self sufficiency has nothing to do with it, as Randians are perfectly content to benefit from others. A Randian is merely selfish, with all the base and ugly things that that words connotes.

Comparing Hubbard with Rand is an insult to Scientology.
Click to expand...

Your attitude...coming from a person who enjoys having their life run by the government...is perfectly understandable. You would see that someone who relies upon their own abilities to make their way through life to be supremely selfish.

I don't share your attitude.
 
The primary problem with your argument, is that you are trying to compare religion to philosophy, and although they may share some commonalities, they are not the same thing. Religion is generally based on strictly belief, while philosophy questions, and tries to arrive at a conclusion by the proocess of reason.

What is the false premise of objectivism, as a philosophy? One of Rand's premises was that of a benevolent universe, but that would be one based on reason and rationality, and most humans are not reasonable or rational, but rather emotion-based thinkers, so to most people, Rand would be considered heretical, as she rejected emotional states as a logical basis for rationalizing.

This may help explain her thoughts on the matter:
Ayn Rand's "Benevolent Universe Premise" (referred to in various essays, letters, and journal entries) is her description of a rational man's fundamental psychological perspective on reality. Operating on this premise, one views the universe as a place where he can succeed and be happy. He has a generally positive attitude about life -- he expects to be happy. This does not mean that he is never sad or never experiences failure, but that he believes happiness and success are his natural state of being. He does not repress or ignore negative emotions, but neither does he dwell on them unnecessarily. He focuses on the positive.

Rand contrasts this perspective with the "Malevolent Universe Premise," in which one sees the universe as a place where failure and pain are the norm. One who holds this premise may live virtuously and enjoy continuing success in life, but he is always waiting for the other shoe to drop -- he expects failure and unhappiness. When things are going his way, he begins to experience happiness anxiety. When something bad finally does happen, he feels miserable -- but justified.
Click to expand...
The Benevolent People Premise - The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion - Objectivism Online Forum
 
Mycroft said:
Your attitude...coming from a person who enjoys having their life run by the government...is perfectly understandable. You would see that someone who relies upon their own abilities to make their way through life to be supremely selfish.

I don't share your attitude.
Click to expand...

Rand is not merely talking about politics, but personal values as well. Minimal government to ensure the liberty of all people is ideal. But there is nothing laudable about selfishness. Selfishness is base and evil.
 
Mycroft said:
You would see that someone who relies upon their own abilities to make their way through life to be supremely selfish.
Click to expand...


Have you read Rand?

Relying on one's own abilities is not the objection people who want strong societies are making against Rand. She was operating on a false premise. Humans are not just rational or irrational ... they are are also social animals.

Think Humanism v. Objectivism ... her story is justifying greed at all cost to others and making a case for selfishness. The stories Hubbard wrote or Rand wrote were simply stories written by megalomaniacs.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Rand is not merely talking about politics, but personal values as well. Minimal government to ensure the liberty of all people is ideal. But there is nothing laudable about selfishness. Selfishness is base and evil.
Click to expand...

Fact ....!
 
Dion said:
Ayn Rand simply created a fictitious political ideology of selfishness to create a story around it.

L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional religion to sell.

Both were delusional and narcisisisitic and it is revealed in their writing imo.
Click to expand...

che seems to be the real L Ron Hubbard because he has lots of childish delusional followers

the only good news is that Bolivians with CIA help blew Che's head off. No such luck with the fraud who foisted some idiocy named XENU on lots of mentally ill Americans
 
Lachean said:
Thats a non-sequitur, also Objectivism is in complete opposition to subjectivism.
Click to expand...
You can't just throw that phrase around without understanding what it means.

Lachean said:
And I prefer to call a philosophy by the label given to it by the Philosopher. Dogmatic how? Its in complete opposition to faith and entirely based on reason.

Please cite a fallacy in the reasoning of Objectivism. If you even understand it at all that is.
Click to expand...

Your post is too facile to deserve a counter argument but you will get one anyway.

Calling Ayn Rand a philosopher is very charitable. Her philosophy is sloppy and unlearned. She gives little thought to any philosopher besides Aristotle, which is unforgivably negligent.

Why is Randianism doctrinaire? Because it is immutable. Rand permitted no deviation or addition to her pseudo-philosophy.

Her entire philosophy is inherently unsound, because it fails to bridge is and ought. She describes selfishness, and asserts that selfishness is rational, but there is not foundation. She makes no case as to why her morality of selfishness ought to be. As such it fails on the most essential element of ethics. It is at root no better than the pathetic nihilism or moral relativism you see of so many these days, but at least nihilists and relativists don't dress up their lack of values as ethics, and pretend that their selfishness is morally justified. Her whole "philosophy" amounts to smoke and mirrors because of its failure to account for this most critical element of any moral philosophy. It is a profound failure.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Rand is not merely talking about politics, but personal values as well. Minimal government to ensure the liberty of all people is ideal. But there is nothing laudable about selfishness. Selfishness is base and evil.
Click to expand...

especially when it encourages more government taking more wealth of individuals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom