[001]
StudiodeKadent
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Lets look at what your Uncle said; first, that the disabled should be \
to:
Lets look at what your Uncle said; first, that the disabled should be \\\"gotten rid of\\\" because they were \\\"a drain on society.\\\" This is such an obvious contradiction to Objectivism (even orthodox Objectivism) it should not even need to be mentioned, but the rationale of \\\"drain on society\\\" is a \\\'\\\'collectivist\\\'\\\' rationale. It presupposes that individuals justify their existence by whether or not they are of service to society or not (thus those individuals that aren\\\'t can be \\\'gotten rid of\\\'). Rand herself \\\'\\\'explicitly rejected\\\'\\\' this idea.
Additionally, if your Uncle believed Nietzsche supported his point, your Uncle clearly hasn\\\'t even the \\\'\\\'slightest\\\'\\\' understanding of what Nietzsche actually believed, and clearly has no grasp of the concept of {{Ubermensch}}.
Finally, he claims he got these ideas from Rush Limbaugh. Rush is a conservative Christian, Rand was an atheist libertarian, and Rush has often criticized atheism as being {{Darwinist}} and libertarianism as being immoral. Perhaps Rush was deliberately distorting the ideas? Or more likely, perhaps Rush is dumb as a brick and doesn\\\'t understand Objectivism?
I don\\\'t want you to consider this an attack on you, but if your Uncle thinks Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source on political philosophy, that doesn\\\'t say particularly good things about your Uncle.
Regardless of this, the point remains that not even \\\'\\\'orthodox\\\'\\\' Objectivists, and not even AynRand, accepted that \\\"people with Cerebral Palsy or Alzheimer\\\'s Disease are less than human.\\\"
I should add, that even the \\\'\\\'orthodox\\\'\\\' Objectivists (basically the Ayn Rand Institute) have rejected Rand\\\'s positions on sexual preference and gender roles (these being the two positions she is on record having that seem rather outdated to someone with today\\\'s level of knowledge on the subject). So even if it is the orthodox Objectivists that are getting popular in the media, they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' advocating traditional gender roles, anti-nonheterosexualism, or social darwinism.
You do, however, raise an important concern; these misconceptions about what Objectivism promotes could be dealt with more directly on the main page itself. The problem is that if I did a \\\"common misconceptions about Objectivism\\\" section, it would become flame bait in a second. Every Objectivism-hater on this site would probably descend in and make copious amounts of edits with the intent of presenting Objectivism as a \\\"philosophy of rape\\\" that \\\"supports social darwinism\\\" and \\\"thinks the poor should die\\\" and \\\"wants to herd any gay or bisexual person into a death camp\\\" (all of which are false, including even the last one (because Ayn Rand argued homosexuality \\\'\\\'should not be illegal\\\'\\\', even if she once stated she thought it was immoral (and I should add, she actually changed that opinion when she was in a good mood))).
Additionally, if your Uncle believed Nietzsche supported his point, your Uncle clearly hasn\\\'t even the \\\'\\\'slightest\\\'\\\' understanding of what Nietzsche actually believed, and clearly has no grasp of the concept of {{Ubermensch}}.
Finally, he claims he got these ideas from Rush Limbaugh. Rush is a conservative Christian, Rand was an atheist libertarian, and Rush has often criticized atheism as being {{Darwinist}} and libertarianism as being immoral. Perhaps Rush was deliberately distorting the ideas? Or more likely, perhaps Rush is dumb as a brick and doesn\\\'t understand Objectivism?
I don\\\'t want you to consider this an attack on you, but if your Uncle thinks Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source on political philosophy, that doesn\\\'t say particularly good things about your Uncle.
Regardless of this, the point remains that not even \\\'\\\'orthodox\\\'\\\' Objectivists, and not even AynRand, accepted that \\\"people with Cerebral Palsy or Alzheimer\\\'s Disease are less than human.\\\"
I should add, that even the \\\'\\\'orthodox\\\'\\\' Objectivists (basically the Ayn Rand Institute) have rejected Rand\\\'s positions on sexual preference and gender roles (these being the two positions she is on record having that seem rather outdated to someone with today\\\'s level of knowledge on the subject). So even if it is the orthodox Objectivists that are getting popular in the media, they are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' advocating traditional gender roles, anti-nonheterosexualism, or social darwinism.
You do, however, raise an important concern; these misconceptions about what Objectivism promotes could be dealt with more directly on the main page itself. The problem is that if I did a \\\"common misconceptions about Objectivism\\\" section, it would become flame bait in a second. Every Objectivism-hater on this site would probably descend in and make copious amounts of edits with the intent of presenting Objectivism as a \\\"philosophy of rape\\\" that \\\"supports social darwinism\\\" and \\\"thinks the poor should die\\\" and \\\"wants to herd any gay or bisexual person into a death camp\\\" (all of which are false, including even the last one (because Ayn Rand argued homosexuality \\\'\\\'should not be illegal\\\'\\\', even if she once stated she thought it was immoral (and I should add, she actually changed that opinion when she was in a good mood))).
