Reprise—Provocative Post!

Casey's picture
Submitted by Casey on Sat, 2005-12-10 21:15

[Note from Linz: Here is a gauntlet being laid down by Casey Fahy. Because of the importance of the matters it raises, I've lifted it from one of the Forum threads to put it on the front page. It spotlights a major divide that had opened up on the old SOLOHQ, one that I categorised as Hard-Ons vs. Limp-Dicks. Others might categorise it as Peikovians vs. Kelleyites, though I suspect you'll find the same divide to some extent within both camps. Me, I want my Objectivism undiluted, fearless & resolute. Objectivism cannot really be any other way. But I don't want it cloistered & funless. A philosophy of reason must subsume an acknowledgement of the role of playfulness and humour in human wellbeing. Too many Objectivists have this core assumption that thoughtfulness precludes fun. In fact, the latter is an extension of the former. There is no dichotomy.]

In any event, here's Casey's gauntlet:

' ... there really is no such thing as Objectivism. It's just a bunch of nerdy terminology bleated by a bunch of spoilsport nerds who can't seem to just "get along" with all the comfortably random folks who really know what Objectivism means: anything you want it to mean. These uptight, juvenile Randbots are NO FUN. They insist on certain meanings of certain terms (defining their terms -- the epitomy of tedium!. Objectivism can mean a kind of Christian approach to the world (see some of Michael Stuart Kelly's works if you don't believe me -- everything his brain imagines is, by definition, Objectivism), if we have a broad enough mind and don't bother with definitions much. Objectivism can break bread with radical Islam, too (just read some of Ed Hudgins' work, which is forever expanding the borders of Objectivism to include everything around it like an insatiable ameoba that rejects the notion of exclusion utterly). We could all get along better with everyone if we did this more often! But "getting along," sadly, isn't the goal of some who would turn Objectivism into a religion worshipping the perfection of Ayn Rand, who was, we must remember, terribly flawed and therefore obviously wrong in her insistence on any certain meaning for her philosophy. Those psychological flaws of Ayn Rand give us license to take the name of Objectivism and turn it into something individual and "human" and "real" to ourselves and to all of those around us simultaneously -- although, of course, we don't really have free will in this matter (just read Roger Bissell if you choose to discover this -- although you don't really have any choice in the matter. LOLOLOLOL!!) And, if you're into the X-Files and all those "In Search Of..." episodes Leonard Nimoy narrates, then you'll be happy to know that intellectual giant Nathaniel Branden himself opens the door for ESP and psi phenomena -- neato! That's really fun. Yes, have lots of good belly laughs while doing all of this, because Lord knows those Randbots have no sense of humor at all and never seem to be able to get a joke when they see one. When you read Rand and responded to what she was saying, naturally that means that you are attracted to the wide open "anything goes" implications of Objectivism, which makes you an open-minded person who refuses to judge others, lest they judge you a Randbot. So you will instantly appreciate the loosey-goosey, FUN approach of the individuals I've mentioned above, and particularly of TOC, David Kelley's organization which welcomes them all with open arms providing they are people who loathe Peikoff and believe that anyone who adopts the horrible side of Rand, her insane insistence on certain principles, etc., etc. are people who seek to set back the real mission of Objectivism -- which is to accept everything (to a certain DEGREE) instead of being so unsociable as to exclude certain viewpoints entirely.

'Or, if you have detected the sarcasm here, you might check out Peikoff's lecture courses if you want to understand more about what Rand said. There are, as I said before, plenty of posers who seek to include any kooky theory that pops into their heads as Objectivism and trash Rand if she gets in their way. No one has ever more clearly and completely explained Objectivism than Leonard Peikoff, and it is a great pleasure to hear these courses and understand further Objectivism's relationship, positive and oppositional, to other philosophies. It is quite clear that in their mindless hatred of Peikoff and ARI, many at David Kelley's organization have avoided Peikoff's courses as obediently as a Christian would avoid investigating black magic. As a result, they are appallingly ignorant of Objectivism, so much so that it's been a real education in jaw-dropping ignorance to see the self-contradictory mush they trot out with the label "Objectivism."

Careful, though -- you wouldn't want to be called a Randbot, would you? Better stop listening to me if, like all true Objectivists (whatever that means for you, of course) you judge yourself based on what others think about you, whether they be Islamic terrorists, Christians or TOCers. You'll be considered NO FUN if you join that side, and won't be able to enjoy the warm, sticky embrace of all of those who call themselves Objectivists but loathe Ayn Rand. (That was sarcasm again.)

'Strange thing is, I don't call myself an Objectivist, and I understand and agree with far more of Objectivism than these others do. Go figure. On the other hand, I understand far more about Christianity than most Christians do, too, many of whom have never even read the New Testament. There's no necessity to explore the details of Objectivism as a philosophy if you already find agreement with its general principles. But there's no justification for calling everything in your mind "Objectivism" whether it is nor not because one is so cowed by the religious significance of the title that living without the title is unbearable to you. Ironically, that is the subliminal psychophancy folks like MSK, Bissel, Hudgins and Kelley practice. Take your pick.'

( categories: )

Objectivism is more easily

John M Newnham's picture

Objectivism is more easily recognized than a so called "Objectivist". The reason being that many people call themselves Objectivists while promoting ideas and living lives that are anything but. I find little use for the term as tool for assessing people, because many people use it with a cavalier attitude (bad enough), or try to remake it into something grossly antithetical to Ayn Rands philosophy.

Still sourpuss

Michael Stuart Kelly's picture


Still the sourpuss, I see. Lots of opinions and no ideas again. //;-)

Just one correction. I am NOT complaining about anything at all. On the contrary, life is very good to me.

I am being complained about. By you too. Now THAT is another issue - and it is more your problem than mine.


Don't thank me

sjw's picture

Michael: Don't thank me--for the most part I agree with Casey's criticisms of you. Plus, I think it's ironic that you complain about how you are treated when you turn around and call people who are actually serious about Ayn Rand's ideas "true believers".

I think criticizing you about your ideas and how they don't square with Objectivism is perfectly proper since they in fact don't square. The problem for me comes in when they make a big deal about the fact that you've indicated that you think your ideas are consistent with Objectivism or that you call yourself "Objectivist", as if that in itself was an egregious sin, a bigger problem than the original failure to grasp Objectivism in the first place.

Really I think the whole thing about what you call yourself is rather petty and insignificant, particularly in comparison to whatever it was you were doing while your eyes were moving while you pretended to read Ayn Rand.

Who Is an Objectivist

Neil Parille's picture

If the Brandens or Kelley never existed, the ARI would find some other issue or person to take their place.

This is similar to the ARI attack on libertarians. Unless you are associated with the ARI, you can't even cogently defend liberty. Even if you are a natural rights libertarian and not a wacko, the ARI will still find something wrong with you.

The ARI wants to be the only game in town for either Objectivists or believers in freedom.

I'll play a little

Michael Stuart Kelly's picture



Taking the derogatory insinuations aside, thanks.

Here is the basic problem.

1. There are those like myself who seek to understand and "chew" on ideas. My intent is not to preach - it is vastly more selfish than that. It is to examine and get to the roots of matters for my own thinking.

The basis I use for such examination is the philosophy of Objectivism and I prefer to use broad designations in the same manner that the rest of the world does, i.e., meaning the core principles and foundations.

On public forums I get the added bonus of interacting with highly intelligent people.

2. Then there are the saviors of the world. These people are preachers and they need strict dogma, otherwise their "movement" gets diluted. Everyday you can listen to any number of hard-core Christian sermons calling the other denominations "not real Christians." The same goes for Objectivism.

True believer mentality.

They need to make enemies if they can't get the real enemies to take them seriously. That keeps the flock impressed.

The reason I have emphasized Christianity a bit is that it is the predominant cultural basis of the western world. Many Christian issues are not formally dealt with in Objectivism. I wish to do so. Others will not, so I do.

Frankly, my opinion is that Objectivism organizations fall down on the job here big time. Christianity works well for the majority of people in their daily lives, and it comes with the added bonus of addressing the fear of dying. "Ugh!" is not an argument that will convince very many of them to leave the fold and question what is working for them.

Thank goodness you see clearly that I am not Ayn Rand! I have never pretended to be. Others seem to wish to be her (or at least as important), though. Aspiring gurus. Whoever strays outside the boundary of traditional doctrine seems to threaten them at the roots.


Just a passing thought. Ayn Rand relied heavily on Greek mythology in both her fiction and nonfiction. I seriously doubt that anyone would accuse her of being an Ancient Greek Pagan in disguise.

The same goes for whoever wishes to look at Christianity through an Objectivist filter (but without the traditional condemnations and so much jargon).

Well... maybe except for backwoods Objectivist preachers doing their revivalist rants...


Who is an Objectivist?

sjw's picture


A few points:

1. Not everyone who has criticisms of ARI is a "Brandenite". The fact is, there are ARI critics spanning a broad range, from ARI intellectuals themselves who have their own grumblings about some of the goings on but don't complain in public, all the way to the Brandens, and everyone in between.

2. You seem to have bought into Peikoff's notion that when someone calls himself "Objectivist" who disagrees with any part of the philosophy large or small, it's this huge issue that requires a lot of noise and condemnations.

But why exactly is it such a big deal that MSK calls himself "Objectivist" even though he obviously endorses parts of Christianity? I mean, what kind of MORON would confuse MSK with Ayn Rand anyway? What's the big deal here?

You accuse TOC (and I am not a supporter of theirs by the way) of drawing a circle around everything they do and calling it "Objectivism", as if they've found some magical way to convince everyone to skip reading Ayn Rand and just take their word for it that she meant all that stuff. Well first of all I'd like to know, specifically, where TOC has done this. And again: What kind of moron would value TOC's version of Objectivism so highly that they never bothered to check on its advertised source: Ayn Rand's works?

As far as I can tell, this concern over the so-called "purity" of the term Objectivism is precisely a concern over what morons "think." No intelligent person is going to get confused over the difference between Ayn Rand and her various interpreters. If someone calls themself "Objectivist", it's not a magical incantation that's going to make these intelligent people become morons and start thinking that everything this self-proclaimed "Objectivist" said is a revelation directly from the mind of Ayn Rand.

I'm saying this to you as much as I'm saying it to Leonard Peikoff or any ARI loyalist: So what if some bozo calls himself "Objectivist"? We have 9/11, Martha Stewart being imprisoned, and a host of other true evils going on, and you're worried that this guy who agrees with you about most of these evils (while most of the world does not agree with you) is calling himself "Objectivist"? I just don't get it.


Hallmark of Self-Esteem

milesian's picture

Linz wrote: I've always made it clear, I hope, that folk from across the Objectivist divide are welcome to post here, from hardest core ARIan to limpest TOCite, as well as the homeless. How much value I personally find in the various contributions will not determine who may & may not post. As long as posts are within the guidelines, anyone will be allowed."

That is why I posted to SOLO and why I post here -- Lindsay Perigo, for all of his many faults, is obviously a man of high self-esteem. The success of SOLO and now SOLO PASSION is a direct consequence of that.

The shutters come down & we see the exact degree of their commitment to "toleration." Conservative Christians are cultivated, as are Muslims, yet "orthodox" Objectivists are shunned.

As Ayn Rand noted, civil wars are the bloodiest. For all the talk of reason and rationality and ideas, most of these problems stem from personality conflicts. The conflicts begin within the persons involved, express themselves as external disagreements, and then live on as ideology.

I do not agree with the tripartite delineation: You are ARI or TOC or homeless. To me, you are Objectivist or not. Under that rubric, are many subheadings. I kidded about a World's Smallest Objectivist Quiz -- some kind of Myer-Briggs that would let Objectivists evaluate each other at meetings -- but that is what it comes down to. I certainly consider myself an Objectivist. I believe that Ayn Rand's greatest non-fiction work was Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. As an educator (and student), I have depended on it. Unlike others -- I daresay "most" others -- as a student, I am not speaking so much of sitting in a philosophy class (though I do) as learning to fly an airplane or program an industrial robot. Those are performance-based tasks. My interest in how those are learned and taught causes me to pay close attention to ITOE... and I find some of it laughable. I am still an Objectivist, even though Ayn Rand was wrong about this or that or something else.

I said: "...I perceive that some people understand Objectivism incompletely. If they are mere "students of Objectivism" and not bona vide "Objectivists" then someone needs to publish the standard by which that determination is to be made. Until that happens, all you can do is judge for yourself -- and be prepared to be judged by others."

Well, okay, once judged by someone else as not being a "true" Objectivist, what do you do about it? As I said, I like Linz because he welcomes your opinion, but he doesn't need it. I submit that this is the essential distinguishing characteristic of a true Objectivist.

"I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings."


Michael Stuart Kelly's picture

Linz, you wrote:

"MSK knows exactly where I stand on every point of contention between us (& seems to be retreating of his own accord)..."

Not retreat. Just exercising a bit more selectivity. Tired of the preachers...



Lindsay Perigo's picture

There is no justification whatsoever for ARI's pretending that Reisman doesn't exist. It's one of the worst examples of their cultish behaviour. Casey & James would serve their cause far better by acknowledging this, rather than trying to find excuses for it. It is inexcusable. It represents the triumph of the awful Binswanger & Schwartz over the otherwise admirable Peikoff.



James Heaps-Nelson's picture


What assurance does any prominent ARI Objectivist have that they won't be ostracized for no good reason, like George Reisman?

You've indicated that you are upset that the Brandens have spoken at TOC Events. I agree with you to the extent that Nathaniel Branden has spoken about Ayn Rand at said events and the degree to which he talks about "anomolous perception". But if Nathaniel Branden had something worthwhile to say about self-esteem, would the fact that he lied to Ayn Rand 37 years ago negate the value of what he had to say?

Is there really a good reason to exclude George Reisman's works? I'm sure they've pored over "Capitalism" and they've probably found some reason not to endorse it as they have with Evidence of the Senses. If I was a conscientious scholar of Objectivism, would I really want someone looking over my shoulder, making sure I didn't endorse the wrong people by citing them in my papers?

Having attended 7 TOC seminars, TOC generally does not address ARI in their programs. However, given the fact that many people joined TOC because they were unhappy with some facet of ARI, I'm not surprised that there is an anti-ARI bias.


TOC/ARI Linz Invites

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Jim - of course there's not the slightest chance ARI will ask me to speak. I told Hull to fuck off years ago when he sent me that heresy-sniffing note. Equally, there's no chance TOC will ask me to speak again. After all, they have to stay in Branden's good books to keep HIM coming. Neither organisation, of course, is under any obligation to invite me at all.

ARI's & TOC's behaviour is what persuaded me that something different was needed. Hence, SOLO.

SOLO repudiates utterly the evil of "moral equivalence." But it lets good-faith equivalence-merchants have their say, the better to expose its wrongness.


Casey's picture

It's not the job of the Ayn Rand Institute to hand out endorsements like indulgences any more than it's Peikoff's job to be pope. They have one simple charter -- to preserve and promote the ideas of Ayn Rand. The Objectivist Center uses the name of her philosophy but also endorses and promotes those who stand in fundamental opposition to her ideas (and even her person through exploitation and defamation) while drawing a circle around all of it and calling it by the name of her philosophy. I just don't see the equivalence you're suggesting, or why ARI should participate in this kind of intellectual promiscuity, either. It's not their job to open the doors of Objectivism to all the influeneces of the outside world but to protect its legacy and allow Objectivism to be an influence in the outside the world. The smearing of Ayn Rand's character, and its unmasking that has still gone unacknowledged by TOC and many others guilty of appropriating so much from Rand, I suspect made this kind of appropriation of her philosophy's name easier and more justifiable (we had to take this out of the hands of a mad woman and her protectors because it is too valuable to mankind). Smearing the victim assuages guilt and provides a false justification for victimizing. I don't think TOC represents intellectual integrity or the Objectivist values it claims in name, given the name they have chosen, and I don't think it is a necessary function of ARI, either, to sponsor anyone who is influenced by Rand's ideas as that could be construed as conferring sanction to a grab-bag of other ideas not within the scope of their charter. (ARI is valuable precisely because of this.) This is not to say that those who agree with Objectivism should not continue to engage in their own interpretations and ellaborations, but they should be honestly identified as such, giving credit and taking credit where its due. Why is that so much to ask? I mean, really, "The Objectivist CENTER"? As Jeff Garlin says in "Curb Your Enthusiasm," that's a big bowl of wrong. And I think the Branden myths fueled this over-reaching grab by Kelley, by seeming to imply a necessity for it built right into Rand's character. And a constant hostility to ARI, simply for NOT endorsing fundamental ideological differences, has likewise been a chronic theme of TOC, I think, because of this transgressive and unjustifiably confrontational (even appropriative) stance toward ARI on which it is founded.


James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Linz, Casey

I have consistently stayed out of the "ARI-hater" category as I think there are many good people there. However, ARI has shown a pattern of kicking out people who disagree with them them and that pattern goes way beyond the Brandens. I'll throw up a counter-challenge to Casey to show how far ARI has to go. Casey, Linz has shown good faith in debating the Brandens issue, do you think he will be invited to speak at ARI anytime soon as he was at TOC? I will truly think ARI has turned over a new leaf if they invite Lindsay Perigo as a speaker at one of their conferences and start selling George Reisman's book in the ARI Bookstore.


Provocative Question for Linz

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Jody wrote:

There has been what seems to me much beating around the proverbial bush regarding several people who frequent this site(and the old SOLOHQ site), primarily MSK, Hudgins, and Bissel. This question is not designed to inflame, but I hate beating around the bush, so I'll ask a straight-forward question. Do you see any value in these people, and do you welcome their posts here, or would your prefer they move along?

I've always made it clear, I hope, that folk from across the Objectivist divide are welcome to post here, from hardest core ARIan to limpest TOCite, as well as the homeless. How much value I personally find in the various contributions will not determine who may & may not post. As long as posts are within the guidelines, anyone will be allowed.

The exchanges between factions have been enormously enlightening to me. What I've found fascinating is how ARIan TOCites become when criticised or challenged. The shutters come down & we see the exact degree of their commitment to "toleration." Conservative Christians are cultivated, as are Muslims, yet "orthodox" Objectivists are shunned. Challenged to debate something their founder said *should* have been debated 20 years ago, they go silent, apart from the odd spluttering about "parasites." Seeing all this unfold before my eyes has been instructive to say the least.

So no, I'm not about to move anyone along. It's the old story - if you dislike a certain poster, don't read his posts. I'll push the "ban" button only when I see palpable bad faith. Haven't seen it yet.

Re the 3 individuals you mention - there are no false pretences between any of them & me. Bissell, R, doesn't post here in any event; MSK knows exactly where I stand on every point of contention between us (& seems to be retreating of his own accord); Hudgins ... well, I rather have the impression that he allows some validity to my & others' criticisms of TOC & is trying to inject some KASS there. I could be wrong. Casey thinks I'm *definitely* wrong!

Do I take it you're becoming a hard-on type, Jody? Smiling I seem to remember you being in the limp camp when it came to a certain Branden, B. Heh! SOLO Thrust must he having a salutary effect! Smiling


Provacative question for Linz

Jody Gomez's picture

There has been what seems to me much beating around the proverbial bush regarding several people who frequent this site(and the old SOLOHQ site), primarily MSK, Hudgins, and Bissel. This question is not designed to inflame, but I hate beating around the bush, so I'll ask a straight-forward question. Do you see any value in these people, and do you welcome their posts here, or would your prefer they move along?

I am currently exploring the

Ali Hassan Massoud's picture

I am currently exploring the details of Miss Rand's life, but even thus far I find it hard to believe she'd get involved in all these silly flamewars that flare up all the time. Anyone one disagree or think I'm wrong here?

Slight correction

Michael Stuart Kelly's picture


I hope you are not thinking that I claim to be a Christian. I am not. (This is where the lie creeps in on the first leg of the gossip circuit.)


Linz -- What gives? I don't

Ed Hudgins's picture

Linz -- What gives? I don't get why you post such rantings for serious discussion. (This guy obviously hasn't read my stuff on Islam and I doubt much else that he discusses.) I'm obviously watching to see how the various new websites shake out and am hoping whatever specialization occurs will create better discussions, better understandings of Objectivism and the world, and a better community of likeminded, benevolent individuals. (With respect to the latter, on the old SOLO I liked the positive and fun stuff discussed such as individuals posting about their love of music, particular movies, etc.) But highlighting trolls like this isn't worth anyone's time to read much less respond to.

Trans (-vestite or -istor)

milesian's picture

Jeez, you may as well slip on a pair of stockings & a garter belt then try to argue that you're a woman...

We have seen SOLOists like that, actually. So, it is not a surprise that a SOLOist can claim to be a Christian and an Objectivist. I reject that notion. You cannot be both. It is either-or.

And yet ...

The discovery of truth is a process. It never ends. We had this litte engagement on square roots. Can you be an Objectivist if you do not understand this basic mathematical truth? If A is A, and if reason is man's only tool of survival, then anyone who can't do the math is not an Objectivist.

... or maybe not.

My wife is Microsoft Certified. She has identification cards that validate her as a Certified Expert in Microsoft Windows. Where is your Objectivist Card? Who certifies Objectivists? Could we have Student, Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master ratings?
Oh! I know:

Electrician -- like Mike in the Fountainhead: nice guy, good sense of life, but not a deep thinker.
Wet Nurse -- catching on, but not quickly enough.
Comrade -- attracted to the best within but unable to conceptualize the essential distinguishing characteristics.
Sister-in-Law -- (see Wetnurse).
Publisher -- Has the basics down pat, but fatal flaws prevent ultimate success.
Architect -- about 90% there, but distracted by irrelevant details.
Inventor -- Capable of explaining everything, completely and correctly, given enough time.

Maybe someone could put together The World's Smallest Objectivist Quiz. Then you could rate yourself on a grid and wear it to meetings, so that other people would know HOW Objectivist you are and in WHICH directions.

I suggest that a TRUE Objectivist has invented ORIGINAL IDEAS. You have to actually have patents, or products or publications. And by publications, I do not mean _regurgitations_, but peer-reviewed academic articles that explain NEW ideas which YOU discovered. (Art, music and, of course, architecture all qualify, if they meet Objectivist aesthetic standards.)

We could couple the above with the Electrician ... Inventor rating scale. That would enable the opportunity to win Objectivist status by virtue of your career. Being a railroad engineer or a foreman in a steel mill would get you in the door, for sure.

All in all, the bottom line is that I perceive that some people understand Objectivism incompletely. If they are mere "students of Objectivism" and not bona vide "Objectivists" then someone needs to publish the standard by which that determination is to be made. Until that happens, all you can do is judge for yourself -- and be prepared to be judged by others.

"I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings."


Casey's picture

You can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.

Since I prefer to

Ross Elliot's picture

Since I prefer to concentrate on the meat and not the fat, I don't usually get involved in nurpling contests, but Casey, you're right on the money with the general thrust of this thread, your last post in particular.

To conflate a newbie's lack of understanding or genuine confusion with a relativistic definition of the philosophy itself is sloppy & misleading to say the least. Indeed, it's a sure way to confuse newcomers with regard to a rational versus a rationalistic approach. Jeez, you may as well slip on a pair of stockings & a garter belt then try to argue that you're a woman...

Since you turned the other cheek...

Casey's picture

Here is a quote from MSK's post to Nancy on the "New Person With Questions" thread:

"You might get discouraged when you come across a true believer who will ask you, "How dare you call yourself an Objectivist when you are not familiar with the whole thing, or maybe even disagree with something?" Just ignore them. The philosophy is called Objectivism and those who practice it are Objectivists (like other schools of thought or organizations out in the real world). The problem is one of degree, not kind (i.e., how much of Objectivism you practice), and purists apparently wish to redefine the rules of language usage."

What a straw man. No self-respecting Objectivist would compare his own Objectivism, by way of arcane knowledge no less, with anyone else's in the first place in order to gain some sort of superior status over someone else. The Brandens, of course, did this, but that's why the qualification "self-respecting" was included. It's social metaphysics.

And it totally misses the point: there is an objective reality about what Objectivism actually consists of. It never was a social metaphysics showdown between what one person THINKS it is and what another person THINKS it is. It has an identity in reality, one which can simply be referred to and rationally explained. Peikoff elucidated it, and was the best qualified to do so. Sorry, Michael, but the insistence on using a word to describe yourself which already describes something else and different from you seems far more cultish than actually agreeing with Objectivism without necessarily calling oneself an Objectivist.

Turning the other cheek?

Casey's picture

Remember, that IS an Objectivist virtue, or tactic, or whatever, eh Michael?

If you didn't imply that turning the other cheek is Objectivist-like, what WERE you going on about in that article? And why would you resort to a Christian virtue to make your point about Objectivism in the first place?

But that's OK, you can turn the other cheek. It takes some cheek to do so on this specific issue, however.


Michael Stuart Kelly's picture

Sorry, Linz,

I can't take anyone seriously who calls me a Christian or my views Christian-like.

(I deleted the rest - not worth talking about...)


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.