Matus1976

Again, considering imaginary Wolf Devoon World where everyone did exactly what wolf thought they should have done for the past half century, and everything turned out exactly how Wolf Devoon guessed they would, then yeah, it would have been unecessary for the US, 25, 30, or 50 years later to act to contain soviet communism because somehow, magically, it never even existed in the first place. Indeed, if Britain had listened to Churchill they would have acted to stop the Bolsheviek revolution in Russia and prevented communism from getting a foothold anywhere in the world. Churchill rallied for the allies after world war II to move right into the Soviet Union and get rid of Stalinistic communism as well, everyone called him a war monger and cried for peace, while you anti-interventionist libertarians would have been right thier complaining about 'entangling alliances' while allowed the greatest threat to liberty humanity has ever faced to gain a stronger foot hold. Of course, none of these alternative histories happened, and Soviet Communism did acquire nuclear weapons, it did invade 1/3rd of the nations of the world, Bolshivism did have the EXPLICIT goal of overthrowing every nation in the world, and it did become the single greatest threat to liberty humanity has ever faced. Could Soviet communism conquer the rest of the world? If it was pacificistic and appeasing, yes. If it fought back, no. But it sure as hell would and did try, and killed almost 200 million people in the process. So please feel free to bow out, as your comments have been hardly more than petty pandering quips.

And that would have hurt the US how exactly? Sorry I didnt realize you live in this fairy land where the Soviet Union, controlling most of the worlds resources, would have just sat back and let the US live as it pleased. The Soviet Union was the first nation in the history of the planet with the explicit goal of conquering every nation in the world, 'every' included the US as well.

Every one of those 'noninterventionist' nations would have been a totalitarian soviet communist hell hole if it werent for the US and its "hundreds of overseas military bases, an arsenal of thousands of nuclear and conventional weapons, a huge active duty and reserve military, and a government that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined"

Brant, this is irritating, I thought you said you reviewed every post he made? I'll do it again. In post 52 Dragonfly writes In post 65 he writes (emphasis added) I see no other rational interpretation to these statements besides his asserting that Rand is advocating killing 'worthless' people and that the masses are to be used up by the few worthy people. Keep in mind in all his objections he has never once objected to this interpretation of what he is saying, he has only ever objected to my calling this interpretation retarded and never objected to the interpretation itself.

Brant, Dragonfly said the following: He has said explicitly that Rand thought it was OK to exterminate the 'Untermensch' and that by this quote from WTL she was saying that the masses exist as mud to be ground underfoot and fuel burned for those who deserve it. That is him saying "She really did mean it" I don't see how to interpret this in any other manner, he is pretty clear. But Dragonfly can always jump in and clarify this point, I've raised it a few times, and he has not once claimed this is not actually what he thinks - because it is his whole point in focusing on this issue, he thinks Rand is an advocate of callous mass murder. But Dragonfly is welcome to clarify what exactly he meant by saying Rand 'really did mean the masses are mud to be ground underfoot or fuel to be burned for those who deserve it'

I draw attention to the word starting the paragraph above, viz., "If." A question, Matus: Are you acknowledging, with that "if," that you may have all along been misreading Dragonfly, that he was NOT "in fact calling Rand and advocate of mass murder [...]"? Hence that it's your charges which have been "too quick" and which "[need] some rethinking"? Well, Ellen, I guess all I have to say to your questions is that your post is just far too long, too repetitive, too eyesight-killingly deadly to read to be something I want to answer

However, I don't agree with you, Matus, either in your claiming that Dragonfly is trying to present Rand as "an implicit [exponent] OF CALLOUS MURDER" or in your, and Laure's, explanation of why the scene is in the book. I think Dragonfly has been explicitly clear on this point over and over again, at first he seemed hesitant to be explicit, but then was absolutely so. Lets look at what he has said: Post 9 Post 52 Post 65 Dragonfly brings up the line from WTL, which you mention and he interprets as (emphasis added) You said of that (after quoting me) Maybe someone else has clued you in further down the thread among the posts I haven't gotten to yet: The quote DF repeated from WTL was a statement made by Kira, Rand's heroine, in the 1st edition. No, Rand wasn't "in fact an ardent supporter of intentional and callous murder," and, again, I think you're much exaggerating the nature of DF's claims when you describe them like that. But the sentiment wasn't expressed by a Rand villain, instead by the heroine in the 1st edition of Rand's 1st novel. Clued me in? The first time Dragonfly mentioned this ridiculous line of reasoning, I explicitly said: (in post 68) Since I do not have WTL memorized, nor had my copy with my (shame on me I do not carry it around every where I go) I made a guess as to the possible contexts such a comment was being made. Either a villain was explicitly acknowledging the true nature of their system which Rand abhorred, or a hero was summarizing it in a sarcastic projection. Clearly the 2nd choice was right, the fact that Kira said it does not mean she was an ADVOCATE OF MASSES being ground into mud or fuel to be burned up. And not only was Kira an advocate of such callous disregard for human life, but SO WAS RAND!!!! DO YOU seriously believe that? Kira was saying this to Andrei after he suggested that the few ought to be sacrificed to the many, this was then Kira's assessment of the 'many' that such a society which advocated such sacrificing would in fact be sacrificing themselves to. To take this as an explicit identification of Rand's opinion of the masses is absurd, as a primary theme of Rand's is that NO ONE should EVER be SACRIFICED to ANYONE, hence the culminating and most famous assessment of her philosophy "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE" For every passage you might find which can be vaguely spun to have a pseudo pro callous murder interpretation there are hundreds which can not possibly be spun in that manner, flipping through WTL we see: "No one can tell men what they must live for. No one can take that right - because there are things in men, in the best of us, which are above all states, above all collectives" "Who can tell me why I should live for anything for that which I want?" "And all those things, they have no meaning for anyone on earth but me, and when I've lived a life where every hour had to have a purpose, and suddenly I discover what it's like to feel things that have no purpose but myself, and I see suddenly how sacred a purpose that can be. I know then that a life is possible whose only justification is my own Joy" on and on. Are you of the opinion that the most reasonable interpretation of this passage (dropped from later editions) was IN FACT Rand advocating the use of the masses as 'fuel' for the great? Especially in the light that the context of the discussion was a passionate objection to Andrie's suggestion that the few ought to be sacrificed to the many, and the whole of Rand's philosophy and life was a testament to living a non-sacrificial life. The only praise Dragonfly can muster for Atlas Shrugged is that 'every word means something' of course he has no praise for the philosophy. He writes in post 30 This 'meaning' he is so impressed by that is hidden in every word is nothing less than Rand's 'true' inclination of murderous barbarism - which only he was clever enough to discover. Hitler may have hidden layer upon layer in his writings, but his philosophical message was deplorable enough to overwrite any superficial technical expertise he might have attained in his rhetoric. *** The fact is, Dragonfly has continually obfuscated and avoided defending his original claim, hiding behind alleged hurt feelings. His interpretation demands related principles to be identified - Is it right to take one statement and assume it encompasses the whole of an authors philosophy? What if some statements are apparently contradictory? What is the right degree of context to consider a statement within? Is it right to consider that every statement a character says in a book is automatically a direct reflection of exactly what the author thinks? What if some statements are apparently contradictory? etc etc When the overwhelming majority of statements on author makes, and the live they lived and essence of their writings, can only be interpreted one way, while a few isolated statements out of tens of thousands could possibly be interpreted a different way, do we take those isolated statements as evidence of a hidden meaning, or do we look at the whole and make a reasoned judgment of the authors feelings? You are correct that I initially was referring only to Dragonfly's interpretation, but as his behavior continued and degraded, I now suspect this mental deficiency's extend into more aspects of his life, or he is just a troll. If Dragonfly is in fact calling Rand and advocate of mass murder of people we might find to be 'sub human' or not worthy of existence, then I have no problems calling him retarded, and I am surprised anyone here would, especially in light of his clinging to this ridiculous interpretation disregarding every thing else of Rand. Rand's entire life is a testament to abhorring such a thing. If he is insincere in his belief, he is nothing more than a troll, if he is sincere, then he is in fact retarded unless of course after this further discussion he would like to withdraw the claim that Rand is an advocate of wholesale slaughter, in which case he would demonstrate intellectual honesty and his purpose in this forum - to discuss and develop ideas. The onus is on Dragonfly, all he need to is simply defend his position, acknowledge this 'interpretation' was too quick and needed some rethinking, or admit to being a troll. No doubt he will instead just continue to whine

If you could mention the author... James Gleick, I believe That details can be found at www.amazon.com Ba'al Chatzaf Gleick also writes excellent biographies, his biography of Feynman was fantastic, as was his of Newton, I highly recommend both to anyone interested in either the author or the subjects of these books.

I rest my case. As you said:

My philosophy is "tit for tat", not "the other cheek". If someone insults me, I pay the compliment back. Recently I had a discussion with Valliant on the Dawkins forum, not exactly someone I'd call my friend (Valliant I mean). But he was polite and I was polite, so we could disagree in a polite discussion without any insults. Perhaps you've been out of the game theory loop for a while, but "Tit for Tat" is always defeated now by Tit for Tat with an occasional co-operate, because the old tit for tat would get caught in repetitive defect loops, which indeed seems to be your pattern.

I rest my case. Why don't you stop being a panzy and start defending your ideas and position, instead of obsessing over whether I was calling YOU or YOUR ARGUMENT retarded. Simple, you won't, because you just want to paint Rand as an advocate of mass murder, and now that your rediculous arguments have been torn apart by everyone in this thread, you instead want to throw a tantrum about possibly being called retarded, more obfuscation. Are you 'resting your case' on whether or not I think you are retarded, or on whether or not Rand is an advocate of mass murder? Either way, I think the judge would have just thrown the case out.

Or as I said much less formally, "Look, he won't even think, literally, to save his life." We have explained our interpretation of the scene, and I think we "get it". Others are never going to "get it", and I think it's because they have more empathy for the guard than we do. I understand your frustration, Matus1976. We could also point out that if Rand meant to convey that it was OK to kill people who can't make up their minds, she could have made that point better in Akston's Diner. Dagny's sitting there eating a burger. A woman next to her at the counter: "Gosh, vanilla or chocolate? I just can't decide!" Dagny: *blam* lol, indeed. Dragonfly is rediculously arguing that the whole reason Galt was kidnapped, held hostage, and tortured, was so Rand could sneak in this idea that it is Ok to kill someone because they 'can't decide' Of course, asking one's self what exactly the guard couldnt decide in that scene reveals much more of the essence that Rand was trying to convey.

In the context of this discussion, you are certainly being retarded, but that is all I can speak of. Saying your argument or your interpretation is retarded is no different. I have no idea if you are retarded when you go the the grocery store or feed your dog, I suspect you are not, so you are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact, Dragonfly, that I dont think you are retarded. Your ideas presented here where you call Rand and advocate of murderous collectivism which only you were brilliantly clever enough to discover are rediculous, in doing whatever you did to come up with them, you were certainly being retarded. However, I suspect now that you are merely trying to promulgate a particular idealogical position, that Rand is a fascist advocate of mass murder, and you don't particular care about any arguments trying to understand what a scene means, you are only interested in painting her, quite rediculously, as an advocate of wholesale slaughter.

Let me be explicitly clear here on what I am finding Narrow Minded and Retarded, or rather what particular thing I think Dragonfly is being those about: Baal said: The guard cannot make up his mind so Dagny shoots him for NOT MAKING UP HIS MIND!!!!! Dragonfly: This is indeed the most perverse passage in AS Phil Coates said: Nowhere on that page does it suggest that she shot him BECAUSE of that Dragonfly responded: Nonsense. Of course she shot him exactly for that reason, that is the whole meaning of the scene! Here is he attempting to claim what the objective and absolute purpose of this scene was, he goes on to say Dragonfly: that meaning is crystal clear, in fact she's shouting it at us: someone who cannot decide has forfeited his right to live and it is not immoral to kill him. That is the message she conveys Thus he is stating that Rand is saying someone who 'cannot decide' has forfeited his right to life. Cannot decide what? Dragonfly adds: It was meant as a philosophical lesson, as any intelligent reader immediately will understand. What is 'any intelligent reader' immediately to understand? He says to me: It is the moral message that Rand here explicitly makes that I find revolting (and that message is not that you may have to kill people in an emergency situation, I'm really amazed that people think that that is the point) So far though, he has only identified this moral message as someone has foreited his right to life if he 'cannot decide' Again he emphasizes this point, focusing on the lack of being able to choose but not explicitly identifying this allegedly obvious to anyone intelligent moral message Dragonfly: - What is obvious (and what is also made very clear in the whole preceding dialogue) is that by not being able to choose the man forfeited his right to live, he is less than an animal, he is an Untermensch. That animals don't have the rights that humans have does not mean that you can just kill any animal that you encounter in the street, so that comparison is also irrelevant. Ellen elaborates on her disagreement with Dragonfly interpretation: - I don't agree with your reading of Rand's point. She isn't saying that the guard's desire "to exist without the responsibility of consciousness" is the reason why Dagny shot him. It's the reason why Dagny felt no compunction in shooting him. The reason why she shot him is because he was blocking her way. I don't take Rand to be saying that simply "by not being able to choose" "the man forfeited his right to live." Dragonfly says: - I use it in the meaning that I think the idea that is conveyed is wicked and corrupt. I explicitly identify the only logical 'moral message' Dragonfly seems to be implying is present: (emphasis added) This is because your interpretation of the scene, that is, elevating this one particular sentance to the key essence of the whole scene, leads you to think Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone for hesistating to make a difficult decision, is not reasonable. As I asked you all ready, are you seriously asserting that Rand would be OK with someone going around and asking someone an important philosophical question and then killing them because they delayed in answering? You are ignoring the context of the scene, like saying that Cheryl Taggarts broken shoe was the reason she killed herself. He finally explicitly identifies his moral message he feels is obvious in post 65 As I wrote earlier: I wouldn't have any problem if Dagny had killed a dozen guards in a shoot-out to rescue Galt if that had been unavoidable (as might have happened in a real situation); that would have been a war-like situation, it's them or us. But in the book the rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch. The excuse of rescuing Galt is very thin, as she takes all the time to babble with the guard, who was obviously so confused and incompetent that he could very easily have been overpowered. But no, such Untermenschen should be exterminated. As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it. According then to Dragonfly, Rand's ultimate purpose of this scene was to present that she thought it was OK to kill people who you didnt think deserved to live, in this case, because they couldnt 'decide' fast enough. His additionally evidence for this is that in an entirely different book, a charachter in that book said something indicating masses are fuel to be burned and to be ground underfoot. Dragonfly, as I have argued throughout most of this, is and has been arguing that Rand is an implicit exponenent OF CALLOUS MURDER. That only HE, as brilliant conspiracy theorist discoverer was clever enough to figure this out. As evidence, he presents only two disjointed quotes, in AS he removes the context of the scene (rescuing the love of ones life and killing someone who didnt care to live in the process) and in WTL he takes a sacrastic deragotry assessment of the essence of collectivism as suggests THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT RAND THOUGHT! Dragonfly is a clairvoyant conspiracy theorist and is calling Rand an advocate of callous murder. I think his position is pretty clear. Equally clear is how absurd and narrow minded this interpretation is, and how RETARDED the claim that Rand, who spent her whole life idealogically fighting murderous collectivism, who fled a nation WHICH DID IN FACT use up the worthless masses and slaughtered millions, Was in fact an ardent supporter of intentional and callous murder.

Hi Ellen, I presented my assessment in post 63 (emphasis added)

There is no lie about it Dragonfly, on the contrary I freely admitted that i called your INTERPRETATION narrow minded and retarded, here was my exact response to you. To which you responded And I said : I have now presented sufficient evidence demonstrating why you interpretation is neither 'obvious' thoughtfull, nor intelligent. Thus it is narrow minded and retarded. Note I was also attacking your INTERPRETATION and not YOU, yet you, demonstrating further your childishness, attacked ME as narrow minded and retarded, without, of course, backing this up with any evidence, and acting as though merely stating it automatically makes it true. If this is the concept of proof and reasoned argument you embrace, I see no point in further discussions with you. I have all ready explained to you that indeed YOU - WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION AND THIS INTERPRETATION- were Narrow Minded, which is obvious. You responded, rather rediculously, and clearly not thinking this out thoroughly that I could call your argument 'bad' or 'nonsense' but that wouldn’t necessarily mean you as the arguer are bad or nonsensical. Ridiculous, all of these apply in the same way, you, within the context of this argument and this discussion, are making no sense. I surely make perfect sense when you speak to your postman or call your cell phone representative. This was your exact statement and my response I think most people have made the intellectual leap between distinguishing assessments of their specific arguments and general full sweeping character assessments. It seems you still need to make that leap. Calling your interpretation narrow minded and retarded is absolutely and explicitly NOT the same thing as calling you, as a whole general sweeping character assessment, narrow minded or retarded. That is why I said, explicitly, yet again, YOUR INTERPRETATION, that you are unable to distinguish the difference speaks only of your maturity level in debating (or at least in this discussion)

I'm not quite understanding Why I (and Ellen) are considered equally here as Bob and Dragonfly. Both of the latter have quickly descended into direct personal attacks and obviously resentments, especially Mr Mac trolling my profile to come up with silly insults (I'm taking too long to design and build a motorcycle, are you serious, that's an insult! ha!) I have only ever discussed the ideas Dragonfly presented (the perverse nature of this quote according to him) and the legitimacy of said criticism, and the logical implications of his allegations (that Rand is an advocate of callous murder) Ellen has not to my knowledge resorted to any petty insults or name calling such as Mr. Mac and Dragonfly have, even though she disagrees strongly with me. Dragonfly said: It is equally obvious that you are narrow minded and retarded. Dragonfly has explicitly stated that he was not making a technical criticism and that "[Rand] is conveying a philosophical and moral message in this passage and she couldn't have been more explicit" What is the message she was conveying according to him? Essentially that it is ok to kill worthless people. Do I really need to even open Bob Mac's posts to quote the ridiculous attempts at insults he spews? With that, is it fair to lump my points in with the direct, intentional, and absolute personal insults spewed by Dragonfly and Bob Mac? I don't think so, but hey, I suppose I am biased.

Ah and now Bob is fishing through my profile, no doubt looking for things to make stupid comments about! Bob, what does obsessing over someone you think is pathetic make you?

I advise anyone who finds no value in my posts to go ahead and put me on ignore, as I long ago did with Bob Mac. For all Bob's harranging, It appears he still fervently reads my posts.

Are you serious? Have you followed the course of this thread? (I mean, have you read the details of the exchange? If so, I would think you could see that Matus hasn't slowed down long enough to try to get correctly what DF has argued, while he's meanwhile taken an escalatingly intense, and increasingly -- up till his last, short reply -- long-winded, accusatory stance. Enough, I'd say, to unsettle any fly's wings.) Ellen ___ I disagree of course, in fact I am calling attention to what Dragonfly is actually saying, and he makes no effort to counter those points. I have not 'slowed down' ? I have made every reasonable effort to understand what DF is arguing, and it is clear he is insisting insisting that Rand had hidden messages supporting a murderous callousness, his only evidence for this is one isolated passage taken outside of the context of the scene it was presented in, and another quote from a different book spoken by a protagonist and summarizing the the evil essence of collectivism. He has not even disagreed with this, and replies only with vague attempts at obfuscations on these points. I've asked numerous critical point questions to get him to identify exactly the basis for his points and he continually ignores them and again offers only red herrings and obfuscations. I think it's pretty clear that DF's 'interpretation' was flawed at the outset, and now he is trying to hide / backtrack to not admit that.

Funny I have had in depth discussions and disagreements with many people on this forum, MSK included, yet you are the only person to charge me as such. Have I suddenly changed the manner in which I carry on discussions, or perhaps as is more likely, have you run out of your obfuscations? Why cant you just come out and say it, you think Rand has a secret callous murderous agenda and only you were clever enough to figure it out.

No, you are lying, I nowhere said that is was wrong. Don't put words into my mouth that I never said, that is dishonest. I said it was perverse. In a later post I explained that my meaning corresponded to the third meaning in the dictionary definition of perverse that you quoted, namely "wicked, corrupt". Apparently you're now trying to suggest that I meant a different meaning of the word, which is the fallacy of equivocation. Who's always talking about mind-reading? I think my meaning was clear enough to any honest reader. Your attempts to misrepresent what I said are pathetic. Perverse means wrong, as does 'corrupt' while 'wicked' means evil. So either you are saying her concretization of a philosophical point is wrong, or what she is advocating is Evil. Which is what I said in the previous post. Neither 'wicked' 'corrupt' or 'wrong' is the same things as 'ugly' Please explicitly state your position. Is it wrong, evil, ugly, wicked, corrupt, what? Clearly since you keep insisting that these are hints to her hidden murderous callousness that only you were clever enough to discover, you think it is wicked in the evil sense. As I said, this is based on your flawed interpretation of the scene, and there is no evidence to suggest this is actually what Rand meant, thought, or felt. Yet you still insist it is so, people who insist things despite any evidence to back them up are nothing more than religious zealots. Your meaning is clear, you think Rand advocated wanton and senseless murder, and this silly little passage and diatribe is evidence of it. As I said, this is utterly rediculous. Of course there isn't any change of position, that exists only in your imagination. And do you think that anyone on this forum cares what you think how it should be run? In the past you've also been poisoning the atmosphere here with your nasty posts, so you're hardly in a position to criticize others. Why do you drop the key points? If you skip points, does that mean you concede them? Again, what is your point of pointing out your disgust of this scene, either you are 1) trying to understand if your interpretation is justified 2) trying to argue to everyone here on a forum of admirers of Rands work that she was a callous murderer and advocated killing people who one might find worthless. Your behavior does not seem to suggest that 1) is the answer, and if you are here to talk us into Rand hating, you are nothing more than a troll. I never suggested how this forum ought to be run, and take issue with your claim that my posts are 'nasty' MSK, do you feel I 'poison the atmosphere' here on OL? Any 3rd parties care to comment? Never mind that these are both red herrings and you are simply trying to obfuscate the fact that you have no good answer to the charge of your interpretation without any evidence (interpretations of this type tell us more about the interpretater than that which they are trying to understand) Please elaborate to us which kinds of criticisms are or are not valid. Since you have established your inability to keep context and intrinsic desire to paint Rand as a callous advocate of murder, in addition to your lack of expertise with aesthetics, novelization, or philosophy, your criticisms of this scene are worthless. Gosh, you're an Objectivist and you don't even know who said it and in what context? Gosh, is this the level of intellectual discourse we can expect from you? What are you, 12 years old? I have not claimed to be an Objectivist, nor would I agree that to be one, one must memorize "We The Living" Are you suggesting that is the criteria to claim oneself an "objectivist" ? And again you skip the point, that you seem to think you are some tremendously clever fella who discovered the true key and proof of Rands murderous callousness. Are you or are you not that person? Do you think this is, or is not, evidence of Rands advocation of murdering people who she deemed 'worthless' answer yes or no, stop obfuscating with irrellevant comments and stand behind your beliefs or change them. I don't fall for that legalistic trick. An argument can be bad, wrong, or nonsense, but if you say that it is "narrow-minded" and "retarded", you're using words that refer to the person and not to the argument. This is a dishonest tactic. You see, two can play that game. Your argument is bad, wrong, nonsensical, and narrow minded, why could you also not interpret that to mean you are bad, wrong, or nonsensical? Why do those only pertain to 'arguments' while 'narrow minded' (which explicitly identifies a perspective in which something is judged) pertains to you, and not only the argument. Please list what quality judgements pertain only to the argument and which pertain to argument and arguer, and which pertain only to arguer, so I might be able to have a meanignful disucssion without you devolving into immature name calling (yes, that is you, immature, not your argument) You merely interpret my comment of your argument into one that pertains to you in general, but I should hope you realize by now how limited your abilities of interpretation are. Your ARGUMENT was narrow minded, I don't know anything about you, except for this argument, so YOU, in relation only to the context of this discussion, are narrow minded (I know you have problems with keeping context) but unlike you, I do not make it a habit of passing sweeping judgements over the entirety of one's life and mind, only that which I have direct experience with. So this is not saying that YOU as a WHOLE are narrow minded. Yet you insist that I, as a whole, am retarded and narrow minded, when you CAN NOT CITE ANY EVIDENCE that suggests I am either of those EVEN WITHIN the narrow context of this discussion. Another point you skipped So was your criticism aesthetic - NO since you are implying Rand is an advocate of murdering worthless people. Was it Technical? NO since you are not talking about sentance lengths or grammatical constructions. What IS the NATURE of your criticism then? It is an attack on the concretization of an abstract ideal that Rand is writing of. It is a philosophical criticism. You think the concretization is WRONG (perverse) and the implication from it is murderous. Your now demonstrated habit of context dropping and rediculous interpretation abilities, never mind the fact that you present absolutely no evidence of this murderous hidden attitude of Rand outside of this one particular sentance which only you seem to interpret that way, illustrates pretty clearly to me that you lack the knowledge to make this criticism, as either a philosophical one or technical one, of any worth. And another The 'excuse' of rescuing Galt is THIN? So you are saying the point of having Galt kidnappened, tortured, and having a massive rescue effort launched was JUST to give Rand one more little sneaking chance to hint at her alleged murderous callousness only discernable by immensely clever diviners of absolute knowledge yapping on a forum 50 years later. Yeah, which explanation is the more likely, you are bad at interpration and have an idealogical bent your are trying to justify or are hiding your initial poor interpretation skills, or only you of all people was actually clever enough to know Rands true message. Next thing you know, you'll be telling use to play it backwards, or pick every 13th letter to find her 'true message'

What is this, argumentum ad spelling? Words are the means by which we convey ideas to one another, as such, their primary usefulness is in the conveyance of those ideas, not yapping about minor mistakes in the particular and specific arbitrary conventions derived from the influence of dozens of languages throughout history. Focus on the ideas, not the words used to convey them.

What is this for crap? Where did I make a "philosophical correction"? That presupposes that there is a "correct" philosophy, which is nonsense. I only pointed out that I found a certain passage revolting by its implication. That is not a correction, it is just giving my opinion. Rand is free to give a disgusting example and I am free to say that I find it disgusting. Is that really so difficult to understand? That is not correct, you said it was WRONG, not that you merely didnt like it. Are you officially changing your position to merely one of revulsion now? Thats great, but what makes you think anyone on a forum cares what you find disgusting without delving into a relating philosophical discussion. Go post some comments on youtube if thats what you are looking for. Also, fundamental to an implication is an inferrence, in this case, I am arguing that you have inferred what was not implied. As evidenced through the rest of this post, you think Rand is implying that it's ok to kill people you find worthless. This is a childish and extremely superficial knee jerk reaction to a few out of context quotes combined with your sad attempt at telepathic divinity. No one else interprets this passage in that manner, Rand is not here to defend herself against your time wasting accusations, so we are left with our knowledge and judgement to decide if Rand is actually advocating killing people you find worthless in this scene, or criticizing the evasion of reality. You are doing a piss poor job defending your interpretation, I suspect this is because it was in fact a superficial knee jerk reaction which came from you taking this quote out of context, and now you are attempting to 'save face' by continuing to argue something so utterly rediculous. I selden heard such nonsense. Why shouldn't we be allowed to criticize works of authors, dead or alive? That is completely crazy. Is this an Objectivist viewpoint? You love to drop context. I am not talking about 'allowing' someone to criticize something, I am talking about what kinds of criticisms we should consider and find legitimate. Silly superficial ones based on unjustified emotional reaction and an utter lack of understanding on the topic? Or reasoned and thoughtfull ones based on good knowledge of a topic? Again, what is your point of pointing out your disgust of this scene, either you are 1) trying to understand if your interpretation is justified 2) trying to argue to everyone here on a forum of admirers of Rands work that she was a callous murderer and advocated killing people who one might find worthless. Your behavior does not seem to suggest that 1) is the answer, and if you are here to talk us into Rand hating, you are nothing more than a troll. You conveniently ignore my second example: that you can see an error in the perspective in a Vermeer painting does not imply that you must be able to make a better painting to point out that error. In terms of a novel that might for example be pointing out an inconsistency in the story. I was not conveniently ignoring anything, I acknowledged there is a wide range of types of criticisms, I am asking YOU to elaborate to us which ones are or are not valid. Since you have established your inability to keep context and intrinsic desire to paint Rand as a callous advocate of murder, in addition to your lack of expertise with aesthetics, novelization, or philosophy, your criticisms of this scene are worthless. Wrong example, as it is not relevant. You might very well tell me that you find the color of some part in the painting ugly or wrong. Perhaps I might even learn something from it, perhaps I think it's nonsense, what does it matter? Looking at a painting and saying "I think that is ugly" is a lot different than saying "I think that is WRONG" here you wantonly mix an aesthetic preference and an objective proclimation. Which is it, is the passage WRONG, or is it UGLY. If you are arguing the former, then we have the case or a philosophical discussion, both of Rand's philosophy and novelization, and what makes criticisms legitimate. If you argue the latter, then the conversation can end, since, who really cares if you think it's ugly? Again the wrong example. You might very well tell me that there is an inconsistency, or that some passage is too long or unclear, or that the dialogue is stilted. That is not the same as telling me how I should rewrite the book to make it better. Perhaps one day you'll understand it, though I do have my doubts. Your assessment of the claim this this passage is UGLY, assuming that is what you originally meant, is coming from your INTERPRETATION of the passage. You claim absolute knowledge as to what Rand meant, yet Rand's own life, writings, and behavior never even remotely suggest this callous murderous attitude that apparently only you are clever enough to ascertain. Yet you patehticaly try to back up by quoting the attitude of an antogonist who embraces this attitude in another one of her books. So apparently every statement ever written, even by the enemies in a book, is automatically a direct representation of exactly what the author thinks? That seems to be the limit of your abilities at interpretation. Of course anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, at least as long as we aren't yet living in an Objectivist dictatorship. Some criticisms may be valid, others not. So what? Same context dropping here, you act as though I am implying a governing body on legitimate criticisms, instead of what the nature of a justified criticism that the author of a piece of work might find valuable is and what kind of criticisms a rational person would feel compelled to make. Of course anyone can go through the motions of a criticism, they can write it, say it, speak it, who cares? But an honest person will ask himself both whether he was experienced enough to make such a criticism, and whether such a criticism is of any worth to the author or the ideas being elaborated. Ah ha! So was your criticism aesthetic - NO since you are implying Rand is an advocate of murdering worthless people. Was it Technical? NO since you are not talking about sentance lengths or grammatical constructions. What IS the NATURE of your criticism then? It is an attack on the concretization of an abstract ideal that Rand is writing of. It is a philosophical criticism. You think the concretization is WRONG (perverse) and the implication from it is murderous. Your now demonstrated habit of context dropping and rediculous interpretation abilities, never mind the fact that you present absolutely no evidence of this murderous hidden attitude of Rand outside of this one particular sentance which only you seem to interpret that way, illustrates pretty clearly to me that you lack the knowledge to make this criticism, as either a philosophical one or technical one, of any worth. So you think that all abstract art is crappy? This is not relevant to this discussion. You were attempting to diminish her expetise in an error by citing criticisms from people who by their nature despise objective critiques. The 'excuse' of resucing Galt is THIN? So you are saying the point of having Galt kidnappened, tortured, and having a massive rescue effort launched was JUST to give Rand one more little sneaking chance to hint at her alleged murderous callousness only discernable by immensely clever diviners of absolute knowledge yapping on a forum 50 years later. Yeah, which explanation is the more likely, you are bad at interpration and have an idealogical bent your are trying to justify or are hiding your initial poor interpretation skills, or only you of all people was actually clever enough to know Rands true message. Next thing you know, you'll be telling use to play it backwards, or pick every 13th letter to find her 'true message' As "she wrote" yet, who said this? Was it one of the communist antogonists acknowledging the foundation of their attitudes? Was it a protagonist identifying the nature of murderous collectivism in a sarcastic projection? OR was it a hidden message for some clever guy decades later to discern the true murderous callousness of Rand. Whatever. It is equally obvious that you are narrow minded and retarded. I have now presented sufficient evidence demonstrating why you interpretation is neither 'obvious' thoughtfull, nor intelligent. Thus it is narrow minded and retarted. Note I was also attacking your INTERPRETATION and not YOU, yet you, demonstrating further your childishness, attacked ME as narrow minded and retarded, without, of course, backing this up with any evidence, and acting as though merely stating it automatically makes it true. If this is the concept of proof and reasoned argument you embrace, I see no point in further discussions with you.

This point has been sufficiently dealt with, the answer being that Branden had made a suggestion to fix a logical implication Rand had missed from a different change, he was not making a philosophical correction. Anyway, you are not NB, he had a more of a legitimate claim to make constructive criticism, Rand invited him to read the work before it was completed and make suggestions. Who are you? Has Rand been communicating with you from beyond the grave to get so post mortum critiques? You ought to identify the nature of the types of criticisms possible. e.g. Technical, philosophical, aesthetic, etc. An out of tune violin is hardly the same things as a corrupt philosophical point in a philosophical novel which apparently only you are clever enought o discern, and it is certainly not the same thing as you asserting that the violinist / composer ought to have composed and played his piece of music this way or that. You should not be criticizing things that pertain to the nature of fundamentals of novel writing if you have not written a novel, such as the concretization of abstracts. If you are a painter and I am not, should I tell you what color paint you should have used and where? If you are an engineer, and I am a user of your product, should I tell you what metal you should have used? If you are a novelist, and I am a reader, should I tell you how you ought to have written your book? Following your logic, anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, THAT is complete bullshit. You tell me, are all criticisms from anyone on anything legitimate, or ought criticisms to be of value come from people experienced in what they are criticizing, that is, are there criteria by which the validity of criticisms should be judged. Perhaps you can share your criteria with us. She may have claimed to be an expert in aesthetics, but her statements about art and music show that she was completely out of her depth in that field. Such is your opinion, in a world of crappy abstract art, no doubt such a claim was often made, but is originated in the philosophical difference between what is considered art by people of different philosophical inclinations. An enormous equivocation. When I use the word perverse, it does not mean "incorrect" in the sense that it is a technical flaw, I use it in the meaning that I think the idea that is conveyed is wicked and corrupt. This is because your interpretation of the scene, that is, elevating this one particular sentance to the key essence of the whole scene, leads you to think Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone for hesistating to make a difficult decision, is not reasonable. As I asked you all ready, are you seriously asserting that Rand would be OK with someone going around and asking someone an important philosophical question and then killing them because they delayed in answering? You are ignoring the context of the scene, like saying that Cheryl Taggarts broken shoe was the reason she killed herself. What is obvious (and what is also made very clear in the whole preceding dialogue) is that by not being able to choose the man forfeited his right to live, he is less than an animal, What is "obvious"? Your "obvious" interpretation is narrow minded and retarded. Again, you ignore the context of the scene, Dagny did not walk up to a random person and insist on going through a door he happened to stand in front of, then killed him for not moving aside and not answering her inquiry fast enough. If she did, and killed the man, your 'obvious' 'interprtation' would be more reasonable. The man guarded a door which held Dagny's lover who was being tortured to death. When the question is one of life and death, and where human rights are being violated, attempting to deny the responsibility of concioussness is not a free waiver to absolve you of the consequences of your actions. The people in the Taggart Tunnel did not deserve to die because they happened to have thought one thing or said another, Rand was not advocating that we go out and bomb and crush socialists in train tunnels, that interpretation is as 'obvious' and moronic as yours is here, the scene was to illustrate, just as in this scene, that to evade the responsibility of conscioussness does not free you from suffering the logical consequences from that evasion.