@askharrietfan.bsky.social
I have no interest in discussing philosophy, only in discussing the novel. Can you understand that a novel might have different aspects to it than a philosophical treatise on Objectivism? You don't get to decide unilaterally what this discussion is about.
December 16, 2025 at 5:40 PM
I have no interest in discussing philosophy, only in discussing the novel. Can you understand that a novel might have different aspects to it than a philosophical treatise on Objectivism? You don't get to decide unilaterally what this discussion is about.
"We're running out of money" doesn't just logically proceed to "let's just steal some."
December 16, 2025 at 10:23 AM
"We're running out of money" doesn't just logically proceed to "let's just steal some."
If you want to study Objectivism, Rand has written extensively on her philosophy. But reading Atlas Shrugged will not give you a completely thorough understanding of Objectivism. Writing a novel is not an effective way to argue in favor of your ideology. We prove things using facts, not fiction.
December 16, 2025 at 9:57 AM
If you want to study Objectivism, Rand has written extensively on her philosophy. But reading Atlas Shrugged will not give you a completely thorough understanding of Objectivism. Writing a novel is not an effective way to argue in favor of your ideology. We prove things using facts, not fiction.
I intended to discuss the novel.
December 14, 2025 at 2:57 PM
I intended to discuss the novel.
I would stay up until 5AM writing sometimes. First I would prime the pump by reading 10 pages of Dickens. Nothing better to get the creative juices flowing.
December 14, 2025 at 6:44 AM
I would stay up until 5AM writing sometimes. First I would prime the pump by reading 10 pages of Dickens. Nothing better to get the creative juices flowing.
This is a novel, and Rand doesn't have to use facts. She can make her specious arguments by manipulating events however she likes. She is free to write speculative fiction, and I am free to disagree with some of her speculations.
December 14, 2025 at 6:39 AM
This is a novel, and Rand doesn't have to use facts. She can make her specious arguments by manipulating events however she likes. She is free to write speculative fiction, and I am free to disagree with some of her speculations.
What about a VCR? There are still movies that are only available on VHS. Not classics, but sometimes it's still a movie I want to see.
December 13, 2025 at 7:39 PM
What about a VCR? There are still movies that are only available on VHS. Not classics, but sometimes it's still a movie I want to see.
Virtually all philosophy is non-empirical. If they are on strike, I often wonder, what are their demands? They never say. Galt at one point said: "Eliminate taxes. Fire all Government workers." That was as far as he went. That just ain't living in the real world.
December 13, 2025 at 6:03 AM
Virtually all philosophy is non-empirical. If they are on strike, I often wonder, what are their demands? They never say. Galt at one point said: "Eliminate taxes. Fire all Government workers." That was as far as he went. That just ain't living in the real world.
Yes. But I do believe that taking all the great industrialists out of American society would be disastrous for the economy. And I don't agree, as many who dismiss the novel entirely seem to, that America would be better if all billionaires would just go away.
December 13, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Yes. But I do believe that taking all the great industrialists out of American society would be disastrous for the economy. And I don't agree, as many who dismiss the novel entirely seem to, that America would be better if all billionaires would just go away.
Are you under the impression that I agree with her about this? I don't. What in the world are we even arguing about, here?
December 13, 2025 at 2:02 AM
Are you under the impression that I agree with her about this? I don't. What in the world are we even arguing about, here?
She was trying to prove that any Governmental regulation of business is wrong, by showing ridiculous regulations like "no one is allowed to quit his job."
December 13, 2025 at 1:55 AM
She was trying to prove that any Governmental regulation of business is wrong, by showing ridiculous regulations like "no one is allowed to quit his job."
"Sleigh Ride" is not a Christmas song. When the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing it, they sing: "There's a happy feeling nothing in the world can buy, as we pass around the CIDER and the pumpkin pie." @witneyseibold.bsky.social
December 13, 2025 at 1:50 AM
"Sleigh Ride" is not a Christmas song. When the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing it, they sing: "There's a happy feeling nothing in the world can buy, as we pass around the CIDER and the pumpkin pie." @witneyseibold.bsky.social
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. OK?
December 13, 2025 at 1:46 AM
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. OK?
Look, it really is not that difficult to understand what circular reasoning is. You know what it is, I know what it is, and I am not going to prove to you that I know what it is. So let's just move on, OK?
December 13, 2025 at 1:40 AM
Look, it really is not that difficult to understand what circular reasoning is. You know what it is, I know what it is, and I am not going to prove to you that I know what it is. So let's just move on, OK?
You haven't answered any of my questions. Please answer at least one before we continue.
So speculating that America would be better off with no billionaires is thus circular reasoning, right? Please agree or disagree.
So speculating that America would be better off with no billionaires is thus circular reasoning, right? Please agree or disagree.
December 13, 2025 at 1:23 AM
You haven't answered any of my questions. Please answer at least one before we continue.
So speculating that America would be better off with no billionaires is thus circular reasoning, right? Please agree or disagree.
So speculating that America would be better off with no billionaires is thus circular reasoning, right? Please agree or disagree.
An example of circular reasoning would be you deciding I'm an idiot, then trying to invent some way to prove it.
December 12, 2025 at 11:02 PM
An example of circular reasoning would be you deciding I'm an idiot, then trying to invent some way to prove it.
This is a novel. I don't think the word "reasoning" applies, here. She doesn't have to deal in facts. She can manipulate events however she wants, to make her specious arguments. She can decide that Galt's Gulch is a society that works perfectly because everyone there is logical and reasonable.
December 12, 2025 at 8:48 PM
This is a novel. I don't think the word "reasoning" applies, here. She doesn't have to deal in facts. She can manipulate events however she wants, to make her specious arguments. She can decide that Galt's Gulch is a society that works perfectly because everyone there is logical and reasonable.
No. Absolutely not. She had the Government making ridiculous regulations, like the rule that no one is ever allowed to quit his job. She was trying to make the absurd point that the Government should not be allowed to regulate the economy.
December 12, 2025 at 8:43 PM
No. Absolutely not. She had the Government making ridiculous regulations, like the rule that no one is ever allowed to quit his job. She was trying to make the absurd point that the Government should not be allowed to regulate the economy.
I am familiar with your words. I do not understand why Rand is not allowed to write speculative fiction. It is fiction, after all.
December 12, 2025 at 12:42 PM
I am familiar with your words. I do not understand why Rand is not allowed to write speculative fiction. It is fiction, after all.
The first person widely recognized as a billionaire was American oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, who reached a nominal fortune of $1 billion in 1916 through his Standard Oil Company. Unless you are over 100, a world without billionaires has not existed in your lifetime.
December 12, 2025 at 12:38 PM
The first person widely recognized as a billionaire was American oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, who reached a nominal fortune of $1 billion in 1916 through his Standard Oil Company. Unless you are over 100, a world without billionaires has not existed in your lifetime.
In order for me to better understand your question, I need you to answer mine, which you have not done. So speculating that America would be better off with no billionaires is thus circular reasoning, right? Please agree or disagree.
December 12, 2025 at 1:17 AM
In order for me to better understand your question, I need you to answer mine, which you have not done. So speculating that America would be better off with no billionaires is thus circular reasoning, right? Please agree or disagree.