pardon the type that should have been Not sure about that one. Given how Rand treated her followers in the 60's and 70's.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure about that one. Given how Rand treated her followres in the > 0's and 70's. isolation, slavish obedience to the profit, pardon > prophet etc. has most if not all of the hallmarks of a classic cult. > Simply because a group isn't a religious one does not mean that it is > not a cult. > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Wrong. >> >> It's a philosophy, no more no less. >> >> There is no metaphysical aspect to it what so ever. >> >> BTW, sexual Puritanism is NEVER express in objectivism. >> >> Have you read anything that wasn't fiction put out by her or any of the >> organizations that followed? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:51 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Austin plane crash a terrorist attack?? >> >> >> BS? well how about Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal >> Reserve? he was very close to Rand, so much so that Rand stood beside >> him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic >> Advisers. There are quite a few others who could be considered >> followers of hers that are also in positions of power. >> >> As for her group being a cult, well if you read reasonably objective >> accounts of the Collective (her term) and the successor organization, >> Objectivism and the Ayn Rand Institute, it fits within the definitions >> of a cult, especially when Rand was alive. How it handled dissenters, >> the behavior of its own members, etc all point to it being a cult. I >> like what the psychologist Albert Ellis said after a public debate >> with Nathaniel Branden. In his book, published a book arguing that >> Objectivism was a religion, whose practices included "sexual >> Puritanism," "absolutism," "damning and condemning," and "deification" >> of Ayn Rand and her fictional heroes. >> >> To me that sounds pretty cult like. >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:24 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Fuck you and that cult bullshit Larry. You know better. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:22 AM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: Re: Austin plane crash a terrorist attack?? >>> >>> >>> Its amazing how much that cult of hers has managed to take over so much. >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ayn Rand has a lot to answer for. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Cameron Childress <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> I think what it does is support both of our points. >>>>> >>>>> I think you and I will continue to differ on that. I'll take this >>>>> thread in a little bit different direction... I really think at it's >>>>> root it's a "free will" vs "destiny" argument. >>>>> >>>>> I feel very strongly that people have free will and that decisions you >>>>> make (particularly early in life) can greatly impact your life years >>>>> later. That someone's decision to cheat on taxes or to hang out with >>>>> a bunch or radicals will effect their life in dramatically negative >>>>> ways. I tend to look at a person's decision to involve themselves >>>>> with radicals as the force that made them the way they are, not what >>>>> the radicals did to the person. That it is still the individual's own >>>>> life choices that lead them to their place in life. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand - I think that you tend to believe that outside >>>>> forces direct you in life. That hanging out with radicals was not the >>>>> driving reason someone becomes radicalized or does something terrible. >>>>> That it is really the fault of the radicals when someone ends up >>>>> flying into a building - not the individual who potentially chose very >>>>> early in life to enter into a relationship with them. >>>>> >>>>> Further, (and this really goes outside the thread) I think that you >>>>> tend to believe that it is the government's role as protector to help >>>>> guide people to their destiny where I tend to believe that it is the >>>>> individual's role to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Granted this whole discussion does leave out things like genetics, >>>>> disease, race, family, and other things that may influence your life >>>>> in ways that are not a personal choice. >>>>> >>>>> This is really not an argument, just a description of how I have >>>>> internally shape my picture of our different viewpoints on a number of >>>>> things discussed on this list. >>>>> >>>>> -Cameron >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312471 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
