Talk:Objectivism/Archive 7

message: :Category:Cults should be added back in. Laszlo keeps on deleting it claiming there's a consensus when we never came to any such consensus. Even Crazynas once admitted that there wasn't any. Laszlo's edits are blatantly dishonest and are borderline vandalism (if not actual vandalism). -- LGagnon 04:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's a credible source that says it's a cult?  Note that there is a difference between saying that a "cult of personality" has developed around Ayn Rand and saying that Objectivism is a cult. Objectivism is just a philosophy. RJII 04:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any. I see something about "the Ayn Rand" cult. That's talking about a cult of personality around Rand, the person. And, I see another source cited that says the "philosophy [has] become the basis of a cult." That's not saying the philosophy itself is a cult. RJII 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, I never once mentioned Kant. The Randists, on the other hand, did mention Randism. Nice try at coming up with a term to "insult" me with, but it simply does not work. -- LGagnon 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And just because Randists want to use truthiness to write the article doesn't mean we should pretend facts aren't cited already. -- LGagnon 04:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure about that? I think Rand said she opposed both deontology and consequentialism. I personally see her as closer to consequentialism --take that action, establish that political system, which leads to the best consequences for the self. But, supposedly, she's neither. She's an "Objectivist" which, according to Rand, is distinct from both deontological and consequentialist ethics. This is the kind of stuff we need explained in this article. I can't do it, because I haven't figured it out yet. We need some experts. RJII 06:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Altough I don't claim to be an expert when I get home (I'm on vaction now) I will work on expanding these area's from the various non-fiction I have access too.  Crazynas 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that. I'm thinking about even contacting the Ayn Rand Institute to try to get some of them to work on the article. RJII 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok even I realize that is like asking the Church of Scientology to manage the wiki pages about Scientology, you just know that their work will be bias from the get-go. The Fading Light 11:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no consensus

message: There is some disagreement over whether Randism should redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Ayn Rand.  Please come to the talk page and join us in resolving this matter. Thank you. Al 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randism 

message: Also, a reminder that there vote on whether the Responses to Objectivism article should exist (to continue to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes"). RJII 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Objectivism (vote)

message: The Singer paragraph assumes that the other sources all do the same thing. "Based on the the invocation of a few out of context similarities"? Nowhere is it proven that this is what all the accusations are based on. This is blatant POV, and an attempt to use Singer's writing out of context. -- LGagnon 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's classic original research. Singer apparently said nothing about Ojectivism, which means that the editor had to make the personal decision to apply Singer's words out of context.  For all we know, Singer believes Objectivism is entirely cultish, which is why this amounts to quote-mining. I'll revert it when I get around to it. Al 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for once somthing we agree on. Crazynas 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You may want to mark this in your diary, since it doesn't appear likely to reoccur. Al 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Singer POV