Litlerockguy, in answer to your question, no I've not seen the movie. Probably won't since I doubt it will be shown localy. If Netflix makes it avaliable I'll order it.
BizzyBee, on page one of the topic you made this comment, by the way, the topic was rolling along disscusung the OP question until Bohm posted a cut and past, There was some lite back and forth then this comment from BizzyBee; ...Rand fans will have their brains in neutral and MINDS MADE UPBEFORHAND, OF COURSE. I find that statement to be VERY disingenuous, especialy your sentence end tag, of course, of course as opposed to what?
Terry made this comment on page three;
"... If an architect is a child molester and builds a fantastic building why should we decry the architecture? Creationists still attack Charles Darwin rather than the actual science of Evolution. They even make up stories about a deathbed confession... At some point in all this there is an undomfortable feeling of trying to hard to hate something or somebody past all reasonableness. Whatever kind of person Ayn Rand was... we have the Objectivist Philosophy to deal with which I find quite extraordinary in many ways. For one thing, it is rational to the point of being consistent with itself which is more than you can ever say for Christianity. (Thou shall not kill vs Just War, for example.) You can take or leave her books on their own merit..."
All hell breaks loose, ad hominem attaks begin, in jumps Terra Incognitta with their post about Native Amercians. Absolutly no disscussion of Rands philosophy, simply an attack on the person of Rand. I have grave doubts Terra that you have ANY concerene about Native Amercians. Your post used Rand as an ad hominem aginst Terry.
Terra drops out of the disscussion and up pops a sleif dyfansdotlir to continue ad hominem attaks aginst Terry. You guys know each other? Like the snap of the fingers one leaves, an other jumps in. Hmmmm, convinent, eh?
Some Observations:
The thread has gone off topic. Littlerockguy asked if anyone has seen the movie, well, BissyBee, Terra, a sleif, Bohm, Robdar, eh? Crickets and the bloated hot air of ad hominem is all I see.
Darth fader, six of nine, you have asked some very pointed questions, seems they got lost amongst the howles of protest. Six you got parts of your comments answered, although I get the impression not to satisfaction. Hard to do when one has to duck and weave inflamatory, pointless questions.
My Conclusion, for now:
Lets get this out in the open and out of the way, so it will not cloud my remaining in the disscusion, Terry is my friend, hate to see people I know ganged up on. ( he and I don't agree on everything he says. In fact we are in a disscussion about science and mystsim, guess which side he takes ). I would jump to the defence of anyone of you for the same reasons. Not one person has debated Rands phiosophy, none. Certain of you are akin to a mob of villagers with torchs and pitch forks rampaging toward the castle.
Okay, question of the day; who amonst you has studied philosophy and I don't mean googled some terminology then cut and pasted it as an answer, how many have studied history? I ask because this discussion has turned into one of philosophy and the merits of Rand's definetion of primacy of existence. Did you know that she chose the term objectivism because exatenilism had already been taken? Her philosophy is a re-working of ideas that go all the way back to Airistole and Plato. Forget about her as a person, many philosopher's were mad as a hatter. Others desputated their philosophy on it's marits. They did not engage in ad homienems. Stick to the merits folks, that's what any credited philospher, or historian would do.
