I wasn’t defending the analogy at all. I was just pointing out how a protagonist in one of her novels commits what many would consider to be a terrorist act.
You are making the same mistake the Leftists made, you are accepting their false premise. They analogise Ryan a real person to Roark a fictional person, who in the fictional book when through a jury trial over his fictional acts, which were determined to have been not criminal, not felonious, not terrorism.
We dropped bombs on Japan in August, 1945. Was that terrorism?
Criminality depends on the circumstances. If the Left wants to discuss Ryans interest in Rands philosophy and insinuate that he must be a terrorist, then the Left needs to explain their reasoning which is little more than delusional thinking and mischaracterization of Rands work as a smear job on Ryan.
What many might consider something does not make it so. It is or is not what you lable it. In this case it is not what you label it. The analogy fails. The Left is looney as always, and the uncritical mind is easily seduced by simpletons logic.