The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt'

Box Office Mojo ^ | 9/2/2005 | Scott Holleran

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt' September 2, 2005

"...It was supposed to be a light column about this and that, with a brief update on a movie adaptation of my favorite novel, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged..."

[steve-b]

Stop it... before you embarass yourself further.

I predict Willie will ride his choo-choo train further and further downhill....

[Dead Corpse]

Well, if everyone owns themselves and only themselves, how do you own someone else? You aren't making sense.

[rattrap]

I don't think it's possible to do right but then, I didn't LotR was either.

[Dead Corpse]

Appears to not be the only one. What is up with some of these folks? People try and come up with a rational way to formulate a rather good philosophy, that doesn't require religion, and you'd think we were cancelling Christmas.

All because they feel that someone might get away with something icky that they don't approve of if they admit Objectivists have a point.

You can be a Christian and an Objectivist, but that would mean having to follow the tennets of their religion more closely. Mostly, the whole thing about not casting first stones and letting God decide what to do with sinners, instead of using their religion as a club on the rest of society.

Oh the horrors. Just imagine what all those naughty folks might get up to without the Ms. Grundy's of the world to tell them what to do.(/sarc)

[general_re]

Well, if everyone owns themselves and only themselves...

Says who? I say I own me, and you too.

[JohnnyM]

"If you want to be Objectivist and Christian, about the only thing you won't be able to do is burn witches or stone people."

I disagree. The whole concept of Christianity centers around man being sinful by nature and in need of a savior. Being a Christian is recognizing this fact and dying daily to self, something anethema to Ayn Rand. John Galt's radio address specifically addresses original sin and how evil this concept, a basic tenant of Christianity, is.

Ayn Rand's work is beneficial to conservativism and capitalism and a wondefully scathing assualt on the folly of socialism. I use her arguments all the time when speaking of capitalism and the depravity of socialism. I differ considerably with her on her views of Christianity.

Ayn Rand speaks of the elevation of self, while Christianity speaks of the death of self.

These two are incompatible.

JM

[r9etb]

All because they feel that someone might get away with something icky that they don't approve of if they admit Objectivists have a point.

Strawman.

[r9etb]

No. I haven't. You are just trying to find wiggle room where there is none.

LOL! You changed your standard, and now you're trying to deny the obvious. Typical.

[Dead Corpse]

You own me? Care to try and assert your claim?

[Dead Corpse]

If you want to look at it that way, yes. I've always thought of Christianity as a way to eternal salvation. One that I don't necessarily agree with.

Also, objectivism central theme of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is straight out of Luke.

Still the inherent contradictions are enough to make Asatru look sane by comparisson.

[Dead Corpse]

You set up a strawman then condemn me for pointing this out?

[general_re]

So the morality of it is defined by whether or not I can impose my will on you?

[Dead Corpse]

The standard is the same. Your characterization of it is what has changed.

[Dead Corpse]

No. Defined by your attempt at it to begin with. I can lease myself to you in exchange for goods or services of agreed upon value. But being myself I cannot change ownership of myself. It's a logical impossibility.

One you won't care to acknowledge I'm sure.

[general_re]

But being myself I cannot change ownership of myself. It's a logical impossibility.

Proof?

[Dead Corpse]

Am I you? Can you become me? Can we trade bodies? The sentience is what makes a human a human. The capability of saying "I am me." Cogito ergo sum.

If you need proof of what should be obvious, then there is no further need for me to respond to you.

[general_re]

That's not proof, that's an assertion. And an assertion is, effectively, saying that something is so because you say it's so. I can't own you. Why not? Because you say so. Okay, but it's not particularly objective, is it?

[Dead Corpse]

Sure it is. I own me. You own you. You can't own me while I own myself. If you want to buy my body when I'm done with, we can negotiate a price now while I'm still here.

[r9etb]

You set up a strawman then condemn me for pointing this out?

No, I gave an example of how "non-initiation" has a relative aspect, and thereby refuted your claim to the contrary. Which has nothing at all to do with the strawman you constructed about Christians.

[Dead Corpse]

I gave an example...

No. You set up a strawman. I gave you one back. You refuted nothing.