Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

LGBT Rights Again

Alienus has once again added the LGBT rights opposition category to this article. I'm afraid that I can't respect his request (in his edit summary) to discuss that change on the talk page of a completely different article (Gay rights opposition) that does not even discuss Rand. I presume that he wants to connect Rand to the brief discussion in that article of libertarian opposition to "some, but not all, gay rights issues." Apparently he overlooked the next sentence, which says that "a Libertarian perspective on gay rights would endorse many gay rights positions." Since the article doesn't discuss Rand, and (accurately) represents the "mixed bag" situation for LGBT rights from a libertarian perspective (what Rand would have called a "package deal"), I am left wondering once again what the justification is for placing Rand in the LGBT rights opposition category. So I'm removing it -- my first time doing so, although not the first time it has been done.

Alienus, you have thus far been the lone supporter for this category in the discussion, which has been four-to-one against you. Unless you address the arguments against Rand's inclusion and build some support for your position, the addition of this category is going to continue being removed. -- RL0919 17:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I must be nuts, because I value honesty, consistency and objectivity. If the Gay rights opposition page mentions that libertarianism opposes the LGBT rights movement, then I see no reason to hide the fact that one of the most popular libertarian philosophers is likewise opposed the LGBT rights movement. This is not original research, nor is it actually controversial outside of Objectivist circles. There are books about this and there are Objectivists who have left the movement over the issue as a form of protest. The only controversy is whether we should whitewash this fact to make Objectivism more appealing to homosexuals and those accepting of homosexuality.

The Gays rights opposition article has a section entitled "Libertarian opponents". As the article freely admits, libertarians do support some what the LGBT rights movement demands; this was never in question. However, it also points out that libertarians oppose other rights, often more basic ones. In support of this, it gives the example of a libertarian group called Gays and Lesbians For Individual Liberty, which filed a brief in support of the BSA's overtly anti-gay policies. This demonstrates that consistent application of libertarian principles simply isn't compatible with granting the demands of the LGBT rights movement.

Now, presumably, even you would admit that this group opposes the LGBT rights movement, since they went to court to attack it. However, I'm guessing you'll claim that this has nothing to do with Rand. Such an attempt to distance her from libertarianism, while historically common, has never been very credible. After all, whether or not she endorsed the l-word by name, nobody disputes that Rand took the libertarian view on many issues, including gay rights: she supported protection from the government but endorsed the right of non-governmental entities to differentially harm gays. Worse, her opposition to homosexuality ran deeper than abstract political stances, as she explicitly called homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting". No matter what rhetoric thrown at me by you and other die-hard Rand supporters, none of it has ever addressed these basic, incontrovertible facts and I doubt any of you are willing or able to do so.

So here we are. Someone correctly added the "LGBT rights opposition" category and then a fan of Rand removed it. I've been one of the people most consistently restoring this unwarranted deletion. Franky, I've never wanted to be involved in this mess, but it looks like I already am.

I started with the presumption of good faith, but I've begun to see a pattern of whitewashing. Just recently, there was an attempt made to remove the Libertarianism side-bar from Objectivist philosophy. What made this particularly amusing is that, just like in this case, it was inconsistent with other articles. In particular, the side-bar included a link to Objectivism, so this would have orphaned it. Likewise, she's been removed from many categories and still others have tried to hide the fact that Nietzsche was an influence.

As I said, I started with the presumption of good faith, but I'm no longer convinced that it is the most accurate description of your motives. The case for including Rand in the "LGBT rights opposition" category is so clear that I can't see room for reasonable disagreement. It follows that any disagreement must be an artifact of error or bias. There have been other cases of bias by supporters of Rand, as mentioned above, so this is not much of a stretch. I'm starting to understand why there's a book accusing her of having run a cult.

It doesn't matter whether you support gay rights or -- like Rand -- oppose them. What matters is the facts, and these cannot be altered by force of numbers. And it doesn't matter if you have a four-zealots-to-one-honest-man numerical advantage over me, the truth is unchanged.

I've looked at the entire history of this discussion and the one thing I have not found is a direct refutation of the facts outlined above. At this point, I don't need to convince you: you need to convince me. Unless you genuinely address this issue, I am going to presume that your objection to her accurate categorization as an opponent of LGBT rights is the hallmark of nothing more than bias.

I hate edit wars, but I've had to learn how to handle them. Just recently, I locked horns with a man who compared another a well-known philosopher to Hitler and vandalized their pages. The result is that I'm still standing, but he's long gone. If you edit war with me, I will take all necessary actions to defend myself. Your only hope is to build an honest case here; initiating force or fraud will not sway me.

To be clear, any response that involves removing the category without directly addressing the facts will be understood as vandalism. If you can't justify it here, you can't change it there. You have been informed. Alienus 17:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand never spoke of homosexuality in a legal context except to say it should be decriminalized. She never explicilty stated that business should be allowed to fire or hire people based on sexual orienation (yes, it is easy to infer that this WOULD have been her belief). Alienus, your arguments are weak at best, and your constant hostility towards everyone who disagrees with you (the great majority) in the LGBT categorization undermines your credibility. Apparently, it would seem, that calling me a vandal is a compliment in your universe. LaszloWalrus 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that her libertarian beliefs include endorsing the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? If so, you're going to need to explain why she held this belief in contradiction to the overall libertarian nature of her beliefs about the scope of law. Until you do so, you are evading reality and you are failing to meet my reasonable challenge, and I will revert your change at my convenience.

Last I checked, truth was determined by facts, not popularity. After all, isn't theism more popular than atheism, and yet you're an atheist. If all you can say in support of your view is that it's popular among a group of self-selected followers of Rand, this isn't the least bit impressive.

In any case, given the amount of effort I've put into explaining this to you and the simple fact that you have not addressed the core issue, if anyone here is a vandal, it clearly isn't me. We have a content disagreement, and I'm handling it by holding you to normal standards of evidence. In contrast, you have carefully chosen an insurmountably high burden of proof that would require me to essentially raise the dead and make Ayn Rand speak from beyond the grave. Alienus 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand barely spoke on this subject at all. She called homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting." She said it was a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, and unfortunate premises."

Is this really all you have? Is this the entire width and depth of your argument? Is this your foundation for insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith and is trying to "whitewash" the facts? Are you honestly pointing a finger at me, RL0919, LaszloWalrus, JRobbins, 64.167.172.163 and "Unsigned" to damn us for the sin of daring to think you are wrong? Do you honestly see this as a conspiracy to attract more homosexuals to Objectivism?

"You have been informed." What on earth does this mean? Do I need to inform Homeland Security?

Are you honestly saying that we have to change the mind of ALIENUS THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE before we may edit while in constant fear and trembling of Your Holiness?

Please inform me if all the above is true. I will put your user id in the "Want-a-Be Cult Leader" category. Billyjoekoepsel 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence you quoted, but did not refute, suffices to put Rand soundly into the "LGBT rights opposition" category. The fact that you oppose such characterization without ever addressing this evidence is itself suspect. If my inference about your motivation is wrong, then explain it to me. Why exactly do you oppose categorizing Rand this way when the evidence says we must?

Lacking any evidential basis for disagreement, I can only note the hostile and dismissive tone of your comments, which amount to highly counter-productive posturing. These comments were not consistent with an honest attempt at determining and reporting the truth. Unfortunately, they are quite consistent with my conclusion of bias. In short, your complaint has only supported my case.

Regardless, like the other Rand-booster, you have failed to address the factual issue. Only the facts will sway me; swagger and threat will not. Alienus 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The only threat here is yours. You failed to answer any of the questions that I asked so you must be avoiding them.

You have demonized me on the basis of one disagreement. It wasn't even a real disagreement. As I remember it I agreed with you that Rand being labeled "LGBT Rights Opponent" was appropriate with the caveat that the criteria for inclusion into this category was itself flawed. Inclusion into this category should be based on any person proposing the infringement of the individual rights of the homosexual for being homosexuals.

I have not once edited the "LGBT Rights Opponent" label because of this. When I turned you down on helping you in the revert war you called me a "whim-worshipping subjectivists."

It is now completely visible for all to see that you have lost all prospective on this issue with the paranoid ranting in your last two posts. You should leave this article to people of unbiased and honestly critical minds. If not you need to be barred from editing it till you calm down. Billyjoekoepsel 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The only issue I'm really interested in discussing within the context of this LGBT rights section is LGBT rights. I'd love to see you address these issues. I don't see much point to getting caught up in unrelated issues. Alienus 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you have called me a vandal for doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, yet somehow, when the same standards you apply to others are applied to you, you reject them. The fact is that the ONLY time Rand spoke of homosexuality in a legal context, she called for its decriminalization. You are subjectively asserting your POV regarding the nature of rights, inferring Rand's position rather than citing her own statements on the matter, and going against the consensus. You said you'd stop placing Rand in the category if there were a strong consensus against it. There is. LaszloWalrus 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the part where you actually address my claim. Oh, wait, you can't do that. A "consensus" contrary to the facts is invalid and I will not honor it. Alienus 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting tidbit about the Alienus view of what consensus means.

"The vandalism is the removal of the ARI Watch link, presumably because the vandal is a supporter of ARI. Whenever this comes up for a vote, the response is strongly towards keeping the link, but the vandal doesn't much care for consensus. I'm thinking it's time to consider blocking their access to these two pages, so as allow us to stop wasting time cleaning up their vandalism." Alienus

I think your response there was very interesting. It seems that your thoughts on consensus are, "If it agrees with me its ok." Billyjoekoepsel 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation is in some ways parallel to the ATI Watch vandalism, but not in the way you might think. In both cases, there was some text that offended orthodox Objectivists. In one, there was mention of the fact that not everyone agrees with ARI as the official home of Objectivism. In the other, there was mention of the fact that Rand opposed LGBT rights. In both cases, the true-but-offensive text was removed and restored repeatedly.

Where the two cases differ is that, in one, there was a fact-driven consensus to include the text on the basis of its truth and relevance, while in the other, there was an agenda-driven false consensus to hide Rand's views, presumably because they are embarassingly homophobic and might offend gay potential Objectivists.

The way to get past this is to stick to the facts. And, despite my repeated requests, nobody who opposes the categorization is willing to do so, which means I must restore the text whenever it's convenient to do so.

One more time: Did Rand oppose LGBT rights? Yes or no? Support your answer with evidence that addresses both her libertarian opposition to legal constraints on "property rights" and her explicitly anti-gay statements. Alienus 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the part where you actually address my claim. Oh, wait, you can't do that. A "consensus" contrary to the facts is invalid and I will not honor it. Alienus 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to the earlier request by Alienus for a "response [...] directly addressing the facts" in his comments from 12 February 2006 that start "I must be nuts ...". (Note: Since I started preparing this reply, he has repeated this type of request a couple of times.) I apologize to other readers for the length of my response, but I'm tired of these bogus claims that relevant facts are being avoided or suppressed.

The facts about Rand's views on homosexuality are not disputed, but let me review them just so you don't have any further excuse for claiming that I am ignoring them. In print, she made a few disparaging (but not very direct) references to lesbianism, most notably in her article "The Age of Envy." Her most explicit comments on the subject were made during Q&A sessions after two different Ford Hall Forum speeches. First, in 1968, she was asked about laws prohibiting homosexuality, and said: "All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." (quoted in Ayn Rand Answers, p. 18). In 1971, she was questioned again, this time about the moral status of homosexuality. She replied with the remarks already quoted in this discussion, about how it involved "psychological flaws" and was "disgusting." She also referred to the legal issue again, saying, "I regard it as immoral, but I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it." Beyond this, the historical record does not show any statements by Rand addressing either homosexuality or LGBT rights. Those are the facts.

Of course, not every fact is relevant to every dispute, and not everything that is called a fact really is such. In support of your position, you cite facts that are not relevant to classifying Rand as an opponent of LGBT rights. You have also repeatedly claimed as "fact" things that are not true or are actually matters of opinion or argument, rather than fact. To address these:

• You note the non-controversial fact that Rand thought homosexuality was immoral, and said so in public when questioned about the subject. As a bare fact, this is not disputed by anyone in the discussion. But it is not relevant to classifying her as an opponent of LGBT rights. Moral disapproval of doing X and a political position opposing the rights of people who do X simply are not the same thing. Not only does Rand make this distinction herself in the comments quoted above, the distinction can be widely demonstrated using examples not related to Rand or homosexuality. So your repeated reference to Rand's position on the moral question does nothing to support your claims in the disputed question.
• You write, "There are books about this" -- books about what? There are two books about the subject of Objectivism and homosexuality, but neither discusses any opposition by Rand to LGBT rights. You referred to one of them previously, Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation. I have this book, and it is mostly about how Objectivists (not Rand personally) treat the issue of homosexuality on a moral and personal level. The only discussion about what rights Rand thought homosexuals should have is to say that "she opposed any legal prohibitions of sodomy, prostitution, or pornography" (p. 8, emphasis in original). That is hardly a position against LGBT rights. In response to Sciabarra, Reginald Firehammer wrote a book called The Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Firehammer thinks homosexuality is immoral and believes Objectivists should share this view. He considers gay rights activists "a coercive threat." So, if Rand had made statements against LGBT rights, you might expect Firehammer to quote those statements quite prominently. But he offers no such quotes. Instead, he says, "Ayn Rand actually said very little about homosexuality," and then offers the same Rand quotes I mentioned above. (I have Firehammer's text as an e-book, so I can't give a page number. The passage is in the third chapter.) In summary, neither of these books supports your characterization of Rand as an LGBT rights opponent. If you are referring to some other books, please specify what books, and quote/cite the passages that discuss Rand's views on LGBT rights.
• You also write, "there are Objectivists who have left the movement over the issue as a form of protest" -- Really? Who has left "the movement" in protest over Rand's stance on gay rights issues? I'd like to see names and documentation. Please note that I'm not talking about people who left due to her moral disapproval of homosexuality, or who felt stifled or persecuted by other Objectivists. Those are not relevant to the question of whether Rand opposed LGBT rights. This appears to be another made-up "fact" that isn't supported by reality.
• You cite the Gay rights opposition article, which discusses libertarian opposition to some gay rights claims, as if it thereby justifies classifying any libertarian as an opponent of LGBT rights. But calls for "LGBT rights" involve multiple issues, such as: repealing laws that make homosexual acts illegal; ending discrimination against LGBT people by the government (such as in government hiring); outlawing private discrimination in hiring, housing, etc.; allowing gay people to serve openly in the military; allowing same-sex couples to marry, or have access to something similar, such as civil unions. Not everyone who opposes/supports one of these, supports/opposes all the others. This creates a significant interpretational issue when attempting to classify someone as an LGBT rights opponent. The Gay rights opposition article doesn't classify people this way -- rather, it discusses the specific positions and reasoning. So it is only supportive of your position in this dispute if you add an additional presumption that opposition to any "LGBT rights" issue makes one an LGBT rights opponent. This is not a non-controversial interpretation of that phrase. People who oppose all of the rights claims mentioned above can be non-controversially classified as LGBT rights opponents. People who oppose only one of them are not readily classified that way.

The rest of your comments are about people's supposed motives and about how successful you are in edit wars. If this was an attempt to intimidate me or others into not challenging you further, it failed. I won't address those comments further, because this discussion isn't about you, it is about what is appropriate for this Wikipedia article. In that regard, placing Rand into the "LGBT rights opponents" category involves at least three significant problems:

• It is not supported by specific historical documentation. Rand simply did not comment on the subject of LGBT rights beyond two statements opposing the criminalization of homosexuality (which, as far as they go, are in favor of LGBT rights). The idea that she would oppose certain LGBT rights claims (specifically, prohibitions against private discrimination) is an inference based on her views on related topics.
• It involves an interpretation of the phrase "LGBT rights opponents" that is controversial and reflects a specific POV. Even by the inference discussed in the previous bullet, Rand can only be taken to have opposed one "LGBT rights" issue. She explicitly supported another (the elimination of sodomy laws). On others (same-sex marriage, etc.), she was silent and there is no obvious inference from her other views.
• In addition to the interpretational issue just mentioned, there is another interpretational problem, which is that the category assignment could be considered anachronistic. Not only was the phrase "LGBT rights" not used when Rand spoke about homosexuality (it would have been "gay rights" or even "homosexual rights"), many of the issues now considered important to LGBT rights activitists were simply not contemplated by most people in the 1960 and early 1970s. At the time Rand spoke on the issue, banning private discrimination against homosexuals was not a widely discussed issue. Gay rights activitists were mostly seeking to repeal laws that made homosexual acts illegal, and to stop overt government discrimination, such as banning homosexuals from government jobs. Rand actually supported the repeal of the laws against gay sex, in two explicit statements. So to the extent that she made explicit statements about gay rights issues that were actually important in the public discourse of her day, she was a supporter, not an opponent.

Based on these three serious problems, I (and others) strongly oppose including Rand in this category on Wikipedia.

That's my response. Unless you have some compelling rebuttal, the category will continue to be removed when you add it. You have been informed. -- RL0919 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You kept me waiting a long time for this, and yet your response is full of flaws. Before I pick them apart, you need to tell me whether you support LaszloWalrus's unilaterial declaration of victory and his call for an edit jihad against me.

If you do, then there's nothing more for me to say. If you don't, then you need to put LaszloWalrus back in his place before I say anything. There's no point going to court when the matter's been settled. If we're going to have a discussion, I'll discuss. If you're going to revert regardless, I might as well restore the category now and save myself some wasted typing. Alienus 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, when did 17:32 one day to 01:22 the next become "a long time"? This isn't instant messaging. And the proof of flaws (if any) would be in the rebuttal itself, if and when you provide one, so I'll reserve judgment on that.

As to LaszloWalrus, I don't know what specific comment of his you mean, so I can't claim to support it or not. If he said something intemperate, then that is unfortunate and he should tone down his rhetoric in the future. (And in this regard, Alienus, you should attend to the log in your own eye as well.) In any case, I believe I'm already engaged in a discussion with you -- at least that is what the dozens of lines I wrote above would suggest -- and I don't care for it to be hostage to someone else's behavior. If you don't like something LaszloWalrus said, take it up with him, not me. In return, I will not call you to account for things said by anyone who supports you in this discussion, assuming anyone arrives to do so. -- RL0919 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not a big fan of bait-and-switch debate. While you say you wish to discuss these issues, LaszloWalrus has already declared victory and declared an edit jihad. I don't appreciate being held hostage to the whims of someone who is not willing to accept the outcome of this discussion, as it makes this discussion a waste of my time. Search this page for the following text and you'll see for yourself: "stop trying to convince Alienus and simply revert". Alienus 17:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "bait-and-switch debate." I'm engaging in my own arguments representing my own views. I don't control others. If you feel put upon because there are three or four people on one side vs. you alone on the other, I can't help that. I'm also not an admin and I'm certainly not LaszloWalrus's daddy. If you think he is misbehaving with his comments or edits, you should address that to him or to a responsible Wikipedia authority. I've already asked that the intemperate remarks be toned down. Yes, that includes remarks like the one you quoted from LaszloWalrus, as well as several of your own comments (such as "Who are you trying to fool?" and "A 'consensus' contrary to the facts is invalid and I will not honor it."). If you want to respond to the substance of my arguments, then do so. If not, don't. -- RL0919 18:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not his daddy, but if you want to continue discussing this issue then you need to make clear that you do not agree with LaszlowWalrus regarding his plan to edit-war against me and will not support him in this plan. Alienus 18:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If I see someone seriously misbehaving with their edits, then I will react accordingly. In the meantime, I'm not going to get involved with any posturing about edit wars and "terrorists" (as you put it in your edit summary). As I said, if you want to respond to the substance of my arguments, then do so. -- RL0919 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Let's imagine a scenario. Jane Smith is a well-qualified candidate for a particular job at Doe and Sons. The moment she walks into the interview room, John Doe tells her he was looking for a man and throws her out. She sues. Judge William Jones presides over the case and declares it to be without merit. This conclusion is controversial, but we give Jones the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assume he felt this way because of the legal facts. Later, Jones is heard saying "Those cunts are always trying to get their way". When Smith appeals the case, her lawyer brings up Jones' comments as evidence that Jones has a bias against women, and that this bias, rather than the legal facts, are what caused him to throw the case out

First, recognize that, while this case concerns misogyny, it could apply just as easily to homophobia. Just make Smith a gay man, make Doe willing to hire only heterosexuals, and make Jones say something about those damned fags.

With that detail out of the way, consider how it relates to our current issue. It is an uncontroversial fact that the primary motive behind people's opposition to LGBT rights is that they consider homosexuality immoral and unhealthy. Ayn Rand opposed key LGBT rights, but her apologists (that's you) claim that she did so on a basis that's incidental to her view of homosexuality. She was only towing the libertarian party line, you say, so we shouldn't toss her in the same gaybashing bin as Fred Phelps. However, just like Phelps, she has publicly stated that homosexuality is sick and wrong. This undermines your case for a neutral basis behind her opposite to certain LGBT rights, as certainly as Jones' misogynistic comments undermine his claim that he was merely applying the law in a neutral manner.

2) There are books about Rand's negative views of homosexuality. These serve to support the allegation that Rand and the organization she created are hostile towards homosexuality, as would be expected of anyone who is categorized as opposing LGBT rights.

3) To be an Objectivist, you have to believe as Objectivists do. When a person supports LGBT rights, they necessarily conflict with Objectivism. This shows that Objectivism is incompatible with and in opposition to the LGBT rights movement. The fact that those who disagree with Rand about homosexuality have often left the fold underscores this incompatibility and opposition.

4) I cite the Gay rights opposition article as being authoritative over what constitutes opposition to LGBT rights. It includes the example of a libertarian organization that went to court to support the BSA's right to exclude gays. This is precisely the view that Rand endorsed; she would not want the government to be telling a private organization who they can exclude. This establishes that supporting the right of a private organization to discriminate against gays suffices to qualify one as opposing LGBT rights. If it counts as LGBT rights opposition when that libertarian org does it, it also counts when Rand's views endorse that action. In other words, claiming that Rand only opposed gay rights on a libertarian basis falls flat.

5) The categorization of Ayn Rand as being opposed to LGBT rights is supported by a number of documents, some of which I've already cited. We don't need her to use the words "I oppose LGBT rights" in order to qualify. That would be an example of an artificially high requirement, showing bias.

6) It's not controversial that LGBT rights include protection from workplace discrimination. Moreover, as I've shown, the Gay rights opposition article considers opposition to gay rights on the basis of libertarianism to qualify as opposition to gay rights. Why should we make an exception for Rand?

7) The LGBT rights movement is just the modern, more inclusive name, for the gay rights movement. Unless you can show that Rand supported the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered while opposing only those of gay males, this naming change is irrelevant. Back when Rand called gays sick and wrong, they were still fighting for negative rights; protection from governmental discrimination. To a large extent, they have since won that fight. Now the battlefield moves to the private sector, where gays demand the right to be protected from workplace discrimination. The statements she made about gay rights put her in support of the former, but in opposition to the latter.

Your basic argument is that she supported some gay rights, while opposing others, therefore we can't say she opposed LGBT rights. This is multiply flawed, but I'm going to just focus on two specific errors.

a) Gays want the right not to be killed for being gay. Many people who oppose gay rights would stop short of killing gays. Does that mean they don't oppose gay rights?

b) In interpretting which views are intentionally or coincidentally hostile to a particular group, the only thing we have to go on are that person's statements of intent. If Rand had stated that she was neutral about homosexuality, then her opposition to certain LGBT rights could be considered coincidental, as could her support for certain negative LGBT rights. If she stated that she was supported homosexuality, then her support for certain negative rigths would be seen as consistent with her gay-friendly views, and her unfortunate opposition to certain LGBT rights could be considered coincidental. However, since Rand stated that she was hostile towards homosexuality, her support for certain negative LGBT rights must be understood as coincidental, while her opposition to other LGBT rights must be understood as intentional.

That's my refutation of your rebuttal. Unless you have some compelling arguments, this category will be restored and any deletions will be reverted. You have been informed. Alienus 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary: Faggots are mostly Leftists and hate Ayn Rand.

Can someone tell me the rules on editing out that last statement? This is about the least productive and most hostile thing I have seen on this talk page and that is saying something. Billyjoekoepsel 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this discussion, but not Rand. Having read everything here, and based on my previous knowledge of Rand, I can't endorse including her in the list of LGBT rights opponents. I am NOT a Rand fan - just the opposite, but based on the current information presented, the shoe doesn't sufficiently fit. I think she certainly falls into a category (libertarian philosophers) that frequently oppose LGBT rights, but categorizing her as an opponent of LGBT rights would require more direct examples of her opposition. Rycanada 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rycanada, thanks for responding. I'd like to share my thinking on this matter.

As a libertarian, Rand is not automatically in support of or opposition to gay rights. In fact, to the extent that she stays consistent, she must oppose some rights while supporting others. Generally, she would have to support anything that involves weakening the role of government while opposing anything that requires government intervention to enforce. This is certainly a mixed bag, but not quite sufficient to qualify her as an opponent of gay rights, particularly if she makes unprincipled exceptions in the interests of human rights, as many real-world libertarians do.

She didn't make such exceptions, though. In fact, she spoke directly against homosexuality, calling it "immoral" and "disgusting". To quote from the article, she also said that "there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality" because "it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises". In addition, she had some pretty kinky ideas about human sexuality that included BDSM elements centered around a woman's worship of a man, and there's no room in that roleplaying for two men or two women.

Now, I have to admit that I did not initially think of Rand when it came to gay rights opposition. In hindsight, I should have remembered all the Objectivists who left the fold when they came out of the closet. They were repelled by Rand's lack of acceptance towards homosexuality, so they became fellow travelers instead of followers. I should also have remembered the recent case of a libertarian "gay rights" organization that went to court to fight against gay rights, arguing that the BSA should be allowed to discriminate as much as it likes against gays.

If I had any doubts remaining, they were washed away by the tide of hostility I've faced from Rand's fans. Modern-day Objectivism is trying very hard to court the pink dollar, so it's been playing down Rand's own homophobia. As a result, I see the removal of this category as being very similar to the previous repeated attempts to remove links to ARI Watch, a pro-Rand site that is nonetheless critical of the ARI.

Anyhow, while I was not the one who inserted this category here in the first place, I'm the noisy guy in the corner who's been fighting for it since, and now you know why. Alienus 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alienus, I'm actually really glad I got into this now; I thought I was begging for a flamewar, but I appreciate your considered response. I'm going to sit on it for a day before I post again (I don't want to fall into the psychological trap of arguing for my original opinion just because I had it). Rycanada 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for thinking, and very much against social and psychological pressures that interfere with it. Take all the time you need and ask all the questions you want. Whatever you conclude, I assure you that I won't take it personally. Alienus 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading the following to get brushed up on the topic. If you have responses or objections to the info in this article, could you post them here? http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040729_keefner_homosexuality.php Rycanada 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read a few reviews of the book, including this one. I'll focus on the part where it says the book documents "a history of the attitudes of Objectivist leaders in the heyday of Objectivist homophobia and a survey of such attitudes more recently. This is useful for anyone who thinks Rand and Branden have been unfairly labeled homophobes." In other words, it's entirely fair to call them homophobes; I agree.

Now, in and of itself, homophobia does not necessitate an opposition to gay rights, but as I pointed out elsewhere, it is the standard motivation for such opposition. Therefore, the presence of homophobia is a useful diagnostic. And once that homophobia is detected, it necessarily taints the neutrality of that person's neutrality on the matter. For a more detailed argument, look on this page for my mention of John Doe. Alienus 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Like Rycanada, I'm new to this discussion. Unlike Rycanada, I'm also new to Ayn Rand. I know virtually nothing substantial about her, which is why I looked up the article. When I saw that it was protected, I was curious and came looking. So here's what I think, which may be worth jack all given my Rand ignorance, but I feel it makes me more obvective. So I'll use myself as an example. I was brought up, and consider myself, a Christian. The Christian bible denounces homosexuality and calls it a sin. Do all Christians, including myself, therefore automatically become opponants of LGBT rights? I, in fact, support all of the LGBT rights you listed above and am proud to live in only the 3rd coutry in the world to legalize gay marriage. To the extent that morals can be associated with sin, I believe homosexuality is immoral. But I do NOT believe that homosexals should be discriminated on that basis. I, too, am a sinner, and thus, again to the extent that they correlate, immoral. I would even be willing to bet that Jesus Christ supports LGBT rights. This is not about religion, but it is a useful comparison. Rand apparently considered homosexuality to be immoral and disgusting. This in and of itself does not make her a homophobe or opposed to LGBT rights. It is clear that she supported the decriminalization of homosexuality. Can anyone quote an instance of her denouncing LGBT rights? Alienus, what you appear to be saying is that because she personally considered homosexuality to be immoral, she is biased against it. Because she is biased against it, one can infer that she would have opposed LGBT rights. But you cannot prove your inference. The fact is that you don't know. Nor do I. Rand may have opposed LGBT rights, but she certainly didn't oppose them strongly enough to make clear statements against them. On the other hand, Rand may not have opposed them. The truth is long dead, and will never be known. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, however. I would encourage you to publish both the quote about decriminalization of homosexuality and the one about it being immoral under a neutral LGBT issues heading, concluding with the truth: neither side knows what Rand believed in this case, because she barely ever spoke on the issue. Is this not both the truth and a reasonable compromise? JoelHowe 07:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Like Rycanada, I'm quite familiar with Rand. While I don't necessarily share his hostility towards her, I'm also not one of her followers, which makes me pretty much neutral.

What you said about Christianity not entailing homophobia is true, and it would be very relevant if I were trying to say that Objectivism entails homophobia. As it happens, that's not what I'm saying. Instead, I'm saying that a specific Objectivist, in fact, the fouder of the movement, expressed homophobic conclusions and took political stances that were consistent with this homophobia. In other words, arguing that Ayn Rand opposed LGBT rights is more akin to arguing that Fred Phelps does. In both cases, their religion is relevant but the actual basis for concluding that they're homophobic is their own statements about homosexuality and political policy.

In the case of Rand, we don't need to interogate her corpse to know that she would oppose LGBT rights because she did in fact oppose them while she lived. Like many living Objectivists and other libertarians, she insisted that she ought to be able to fire someone on the sole basis of their sexual orientation. In fact, she opposed all gay rights that required government protection and only endorsed the ones that coincidentally fit her goal of minimizing the power of the government.

I don't think this is at all a subtle or ambiguous case. The right to employment without discrimination is such a basic element of the LGBT rights package that opposing it, along with admitting intent by calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", suffice to fit Rand into the LGBT rights opposition category. Alienus 16:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's what I'm thinking: Rand was a homophobe - I'm convinced of that, although of course I wish I had infinite resources so I could go to originals. Rand was a libertarian rights-theorist - obvious. I also agree that the most natural interpretive extension of her beliefs is in opposition to gay rights - especially those rights which require government intervention. But I'm still against putting her in this category, because even though her thoughts (extended naturally by her followers) line up with gay rights opposition, she did not take up that opposition (i.e. as a cause) herself. To put her in that category, I'd have to see evidence that either she campaigned or formally argued against gay rights (rather than expressing homophobic opinions) . I am absolutely not a Rand-fan (in my reckless youth I may or may not have taken her books from the philosophy section and deliberately hid them all over the bookstore) but I feel that when Rand is included in that category, it becomes overly broad; sort of a coincidental matching of ethicists and homophobes, rather than those who have concerted or formal opposition to gay rights. That's my take. Rycanada 18:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If the category had been "Famous homophobes", then I suspect we'd both agree to add her to the list. The tricky part is that the category speaks specifically of opposing LGBT rights, not merely being homophobic.

As I understand it, to fit in the category of those who oppose LGBT rights, a person would have to be a public speaker or activist who campaigned for policies that non-coincidentally oppose LGBT rights. A pure Libertarian can oppose LGBT rights without ever fitting in, because that opposition is presumably coincidental. For that matter, a person who, when pressed, admits to thinking that homosexuality is immoral and disgusting, but does nothing to oppose LGBT rights, is a homophobe but likewise does not fit.

However, Rand fits both criteria. On the one hand, because she spoke publicly against homosexuality, any opposition to LGBT rights cannot be taken as coincidental. On the other, because she spoke publicly for government policies that oppose LGBT rights, she cannot be considered merely homophobic.

What am I missing here? Alienus 20:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your definition ("a public speaker or activist who campaigned for policies that non-coincidentally oppose LGBT rights") is too broad - and I think there's an awkwardness there that shows it. I think, and I believe we could gain consensus on, a tighter definition along the lines of "A public speaker or activist who campaigns against LGBT rights." Rycanada 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that Rand is an opponent of theism or communism? Alienus 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain the shift and your intentions? There's a giant fish in my head who's telling me that the death star is already operational. Rycanada 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a trap; I'm making an analogy. The proper response is to answer it, but anticipate any analogy by showing where it doesn't match up. Alienus 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

All of Rand's work can be considered an attack on those two ideologies; her entire philosophical position is totally antithetical to them. But the same can't be said of gay rights. Because of - at the least - the line of libertarianism -> do what you like -> right to be gay, the analogy doesn't hold. That's why I saw it as a trap. Rycanada 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I never said that Rand's opposition to gay rights is based on her support for libertarian.

Take a step back. Rand's opposition to Communism can be traced to her support for libertarianism (or perhaps vice versa). Her opposition to theism has other roots, including her Nietzchean rejection of altruism, which is why she famously slammed libertarians for agreeing with her on politics/economics yet failing to agree regarding atheism. Likewise, her opposition to homosexuality and gay rights comes from her views of sexual morality and aesthetics, as guided by her tendency to moralize by judging others against her personal tastes. Homosexuality is wrong for her, since she's (presumably) straight, so she calls it wrong for all. Since it's wrong for all, she's motivated to interpret her other views, such as libertarianism, in a way that supports an opposition to gay rights. Alienus 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not think that you said that Rand's opposition to gay rights was based on her libertarianism. My point is that the core of her thinking (which is largely, but not wholly, represented by a rampant will-to-power individualism) is antithetical to both communism and theism - even if we didn't have the background of communist oppression, this would be so. But without remarks outside of her works, we can't take the same approach with regards to gay rights - because of the line of thinking which is available to us that I mentioned before, we can't say that she is making an argument that is necessarily anti gay rights. If she had felt challenged on that, and proceeded to take up the issue at length, then she very well may have become a gay rights opponent - but she never devoted sufficient energies to the area to fall into that definition. Rycanada 00:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you account for her views on sexuality, particularly the BDSM-flavored ones where the male is symbolically dominant? Alienus 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

She has views on sexuality - particularly, BDSM-flavored ones where the male is symbolically dominant. They do not amount to a concerted argument or campaign against gay rights. Rycanada 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed by your answer because I sense it isn't very open or honest. You're trying so hard to "win" that you're not willing to acknowledge facts that are uncomfortable.

The reason I brought up her views on sexuality is that she says they stem directly from her view of the proper role of "man qua man", which is the same basis as her support the rest of her ethical/political system. In short, her homophobic sexual ethics are as much a core part of her philosophy as her anti-communism and atheism, which is precisely what you denied.

Of course, you don't want to admit that, because it gets in the way of the recognition that her opposition to gay rights is not coincidental to her homophobia, nor a mere artifact of libertarianism. According to her totalist view, you can no more exclude homophobia from Objectivism than you can libertarianism.

Frankly, what you're doing is raising the requirements arbitrarily high, and that's not how honest people discuss a matter. Therefore, I'm not going to bother with you any longer. Unless you show some intellectual honesty, this is a waste of my time. Alienus 18:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of raising the bar arbitrarily high, and I can explain precisely my "dishonesty" as you call it. Before I entered into this discussion, I read your previous conversations with other users, and noted that you preferred getting into extended debates, and felt yourself empowered to filibuster the issue. As a result, I am exceedingly careful in my responses here. I'm no longer sure that you are actually trying to convince anyone; I hoped by repeating your statements to demonstrate to you that the further inferences you were trying to make were not sufficient for your case. I saw that you were trying to create a situation where you could draw them out, but I have no intention of ceding that ground through loose discussion or sloppy inference, nor taking up an indefensible position by overstating my case.

I have been concise precisely because I have no intention of being drawn into some complex word game that circles around the central issue. If your case is sufficiently strong to _categorize_ Rand, you should be able to put forth clear, concise, and direct evidence of such, rather than relying on elaborate essay-like extrapolations. The definition which I previously provided is not arbitrarily high: "A public speaker or activist who formally argues or campaigns against LGBT rights." I stand by that definition for the category you're trying to put Rand in, and I still don't see evidence that she fits in that category. Rycanada 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

" Like many living Objectivists and other libertarians, she insisted that she ought to be able to fire someone on the sole basis of their sexual orientation." Yes, but this is clearly coincidental opposition. As someone pointed out in one of the archives, she didn't oppose gay people in the workplace, she opposed the regulation of who employers could hire. She would have supported the right to fire someone because they are straight and NOT gay. If the employer wanted to, Rand would support an all-gay workplace. Rand was only arguing for the right of an employer to choose who works for him/her. Again, let's not make this specific. If she opposes LGBT rights on these grounds, she also opposes heterosexual rights on these grounds. And then who's left? Care to make a general "opposition to human rights" category? JoelHowe 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That would make a good category, and she fits it. Rycanada 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that she opposed human rights so much as she ranks them as inferior to (or entirely subsumed by) property rights. Now, if Rand had said that heterosexaulity was immoral and disgusting, perhaps you'd have an argument for including her in the heterosexual rights opposition category. Alienus 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the fact that she called homosexuality immoral and disgusting is unrelated to her views on human rights. Everyone agrees that Rand considered human rights inferior to or subsumed by property rights. The crux of your argument is that because she considered homosexuality immoral, it is fair to single out one human right and list her has being opposed to it. However, I believe that Rand would have held the same opinion on human rights regardless of her views toward homosexuals. They were for her, I think, totally separate issues. It was not her opposition to LGBT rights that led her to support indiscriminate firing of employees. Therefore I don't think it is fair to argue the reverse: that her views on firing are evidence of her opposition to LGBT rights. JoelHowe 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To say her application of libertarianism is entirely independent of her homophobia requires the same sort of posthumous mind-reading that we've been trying all along to avoid. We're not here to insert words in her mouth, but to listen to the words she said. She said gays are immoral and disgusting, and she spoke against key gay rights. Your defense is to argue that the two are coincidental, but that does not seem supportable. Rand herself insisted that her philosophy was not a collection of independent views coincidentally held by one person, but rather a cohesive whole from which no part can be removed. We must take Rand on her word rather than making apologies for her. Alienus 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think arguing that she opposed LGBT rights on the grounds that she supported employers right to fire anyone is misleading. It makes it seem as if she wanted gays to be fired for being gay. This is not the whole story. She wanted anyone to be able to be fired for being anything. By focusing on only one group, you're witholding information by not telling the whole story. It is clear, however, that you are unlikely to change your mind. I don't care enough about the accuracy of this article to stick around; like I said before: I haven't even read any of her books.

But before I go, please consider that over the course of this discussion you have had people disagreeing with you who love Rand, who disliked her, and who knew virtually nothing about her. It is obvious that you believe what you say to be true, but no one else has stepped up to agree with you. Can you accept a consensus that doesn't include yourself? I'm not certain you can, but I'm going to suggest that you consider pointing out her opposition to the firing of anyone, and not singling out gays. Of course, I'm probably never going to read this article again, so I don't much care what you do. I'm only suggesting that you consider that a consensus has built up contrary to what you are saying. That certainly doesn't make you wrong, but if everyone simply started an edit-war every time they were in the minority, this place wouldn't look or run as nicely as it does.

On the 18th of January 2006, you said "Unless you can come up with a consensus of editors or some citations strong enough to overturn my own, I consider this matter settled." If you were being truthful in that statement, I would ask how many votes it requires to defeat your vote. Since that time, several people have cast their vote against your opinion; people of different opinions on Rand herself. Since that time, I couldn't find anyone speaking out in support of you. Again, that doesn't make you wrong, it just means people disagree. And I would encourage you, unless you really want to be dictator of the Ayn Rand page, to let majority rule. Best of luck in all you do. :) JoelHowe 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And I think arguing that her opposition to gay right is coincidental to her homophobia is misleading. I gave the real-world example of a libertarian "gay rights" group that went to court to oppose gay rights. Should they be excluded from the "GLBT rights opposition" category simply because their stated basis is libertarianism or because they claim to actively support gay rights? Should we listen to their stated goals and reasoning, or should we instead recognize that their libertarian bias against positive rights means opposing a broad range of gay rights? I don't see why libertarian should be a valid excuse for opposing gay rights, much less outright homophobia. And let's remember, Rand was not only homophobic but founded an organization that, among other things, opposes gay right to this very day.

A paradigmatic example of LGBT rights opposition is Fred Phelps. Yet Phelps opposes many other things in addition to gay rights, including Scandinavians, Mr. Rogers and the miners who died in the Sago Mine disaster! Does that mean we should remove him from the gay rights category? If not, then why does opposing straight rights get Rand out of the gay rights opposition category?

As for consensus, I flatly deny the existence of one. There is a simple majority at this moment, but only among a self-selected minority, and we lack the unanimity required by consensus. Likewise, there've certainly been no citations that clear Rand. Alienus 18:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if these points have been made before, but I would like to weigh in with my opinion. Category:LGBT rights opposition states: “Some of the individuals and organizations listed below have taken assertive stances on limiting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals or groups.” There is no evidence that Rand belived individuals possessed rights or lost rights on the basis of their sexual orientation, or that LGBTs were not entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Her name should be left out of the category. AED 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[Edit to correct ref to Category--TJ 12:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)]

With all due respect, that turns out not to be the case. To be specific, homosexuals currently have some protections from non-governmental discrimination, but Rand opposed these rights. Like libertarians, she considered these to be "special rights", and therefore rejected them. As it happens, in a post I just made to Talk:Gay_rights_opposition, I explained why this view is mistaken. Alienus 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Most specifically, Rand supported the "right" of anyone to discriminate against anyone. I'm relatively certain that she did not support the idea that individuals possessed rights or lost rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. AED 08:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much anything can be redefined in terms of supporting a certain set of rights (while opposing another), which is why we have to be so careful to identify just what set we're talking about. Ayn Rand opposed gay rights, as understood by the gay rights movement. Alienus 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with describing Rand as opposing a set of rights based on an interpretation of her statements against how those rights are defined now is problemmatic. The meaning of a term/concept changes over time and that is especially true about contemporary issues where both sides work to redefine the issue to get the results they desire. Thus we should not make conjectures about her position on an "current issue" based on statements Rand made about a related issue. Trödel•talk 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not historically accurate. Even back when Rand was talking about homosexuality, the gay rights movement opposed all discrimination against gays, not just governmental discrimination. As a result, Rand opposed gay rights all along. For more on this, including lots of quotes, check out Objectivism and homosexuality. (It's currently being vandalized, so just check the history for the last version by me.) Alienus 17:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cult leaders?

To put Rand in this Category there will need to be YOTTABYTES of discussion and citations that have yet to be even addressed.

Rand is an Epistemologist. Whether people agree her epistemology is valid doesn't remover her from that category.

Rand is a Philosopher of the Mind and a Moral Philosopher. Whether people agree her ideas are valid doesn't remover her from those categories.

She is in these categories because of the multiple volumes she has written on these subjects. She should not be removed from them for the sin of not conforming to your beliefs.Billyjoekoepsel 14:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me state my strong agreement with Billyjoekoepsel on this. There has been too much manipulation of the categories for this article for POV pushing, and the edit by Lacatosias was just another example. -- RL0919 16:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If we removed people from categories based on our whims or personal judgements, then there'd be few people left in the philosophy category. But, of course, you're quite familiar with removing people from categories based on whims, eh? I say leave Rand in these various philosophy categories, but exclude her from the cult leader category, as that has been unsubstantiated. There is, however, sufficient citation for her to be categorized as an accused cult leader, as per the Shermer book. There is, after all, a much lower burden for mere accusation. Alienus 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Alienus's criterion for "whim" is simply anything he doesn't agree with. His criterion for "personal judment" is a judment that is not his judgment. Debate is impossible with someone who subjectively invents facts and fallacious interpretatons thereof in order to force an article to conform to his POV. I recommend that those of us who oppose Rand's categoriztion in "LGBT Rights opposition" stop trying to convince Alienus and simply revert his vandalism. If we all work together on this, none of us will be in violation of the revert rules, and we can keep the article objective. LaszloWalrus 07:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want a category for "Accused Cult Leaders" how about some other ideas for arbitrary categories.

10. "Dogs that like to sniff stuff."

9. "Factual people that agree with Alienus"

8. "Evil people that disagree with Alienus and are POV"

7. "People that like The Last Starfighter"

6. "People that hate The Last Starfighter"

5. "Gray haired people under 40 years old"

4. "Organizations with greater than 2 associates"

3. "Printers that take 8.5 by 11 paper.

2. "People accused by Alienus of LGBT Rights opposition"

1. "People Accused of being a pinto-bean flavored doughnut"

Billyjoekoepsel 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT rights movement exists. Some people support it, others oppose it. It's well within the bounds of Wikipedia to categorize people on this basis. If you consider this arbitrary, then I guess it means you don't much care one way or the other about the LGBT rights movement. That's fine, of course, but if you don't care, why are you getting involved?

Frankly, I was confused when you earlier said that you agreed about Rand belonging in that "LGBT rights opposition", then said you wouldn't get involved, and now speak of opposing it. I'm really not interested in trying to figure out where you stand. My only interest is in whether you are contributing to a facts-based discussion of this issue. Alienus 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Writes Alienus, "It is an uncontroversial fact that the primary motive behind people's opposition to LGBT rights is that they consider homosexuality immoral and unhealthy." Really? Says who?

Writes Alienus "To be an Objectivist, you have to believe as Objectivists do. When a person supports LGBT rights, they necessarily conflict with Objectivism. This shows that Objectivism is incompatible with and in opposition to the LGBT rights movement. The fact that those who disagree with Rand about homosexuality have often left the fold underscores this incompatibility and opposition."

Two of the most prominent Objectivists, Drs. Ellen Kenner and Ed Locke are holding a seminar, whose description reads in part "The instructors will illustrate key principles by performing role-play dialogues, and participants will be given voluntary exercises to enhance their ability to apply these skills to their own lives. The course is open to couples, including SAME-SEX COUPLES, singles—anyone who wants to enhance a current relationship or acquire knowledge for a future one." (emphasis mine). Similarly, the "Objectivist" Center openly disagrees with Rand about homosexuality, as does Harry Binswanger, one of the most important people at the Ayn Rand Institute. So, I believe, does LEONARD PEIKOFF, her intellectual heir, per his lecture "Love and Sex." Similarly, Alienus believes that Rand was "following the libertarian party line." This statement is not only wrong, but dishonest as well. Rand hated libertarianism in general (professing greater respect even for Marxists than libertarians), and the Libertarian Party in particular. Alienus's edits constitute vandalism. LaszloWalrus 06:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I am underwhelmed. At best, you're arguing that, post-Randian Objectivism has done an about-face on the evil of homosexuality. If we were arguing whether Objectivism or the ARI were opponents of LGBT rights, then perhaps some of what you wrote might have been relevant. Sadly, it's not. I will, of course, restore any unexplained and unjustified removals of Rand from this category. Alienus 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

---

At this point, LasloWalrus decided that he couldn't win on the facts, so he was going to initiate force, instead. He's started an edit war to keep Rand's anti-gay category censored. I'm simply going to count up his reversions and have him blocked the moment he violates 3RR. Alienus 07:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, he did it. Despite warnings from three directions, he's violated the 3RR and been reported. This is, in fact, the second time I've had to report a 3RR violation over this same topic, though the first time with this person. Alienus 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged's central theme was not political

I have deleted the statement claiming that Atlas Shrugged had a "central political theme" because Ayn Rand states explicitly that the novel's theme is not political, but metaphysical (see Ayn Rand Answers), mentioning that she progressed from a political theme in her first novel (We the Living), to a metaphysical theme in her last novel (Atlas Shrugged). LaszloWalrus 23:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Ayn Rand a Philosopher of the Mind?

This is a limited and specialized field and I would like to hear discussion of this one as it relates to Ayn.

If someone could put in a coherent set of criteria for inclusion into the category we can begin.Billyjoekoepsel 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you can explicity identify peer-reviwed articles in such philosophy journals as Mind, Erkenntnis, and other such places in which

1) Ayn Rand is the principal or even second or third author and/or

2) Ayn Rand is mentioned by other philosophers or researchers in philosphy of mind, cognitive science, etc, as a source for some idea(s),then I will accept that she is a philsopher of mind. Otherwise, she is not. Period. I don't care what the majority of the editors of this page happene to think on the matter.--Lacatosias 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lac, if you're going to hold her to the same reasonable academic standards that we apply to everyone else, we're going to have to stop classifying her as a philosopher at all. Let's lower the bar by only asking that Rand wrote on the subjects typically considered to be part of philosophy of the mind. Ok? Alienus 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So, L. Rom Hubbard really was a physchologist then?? He wrote about psyhcology. And what about all this self-help books that people write? Arenìt they all physologists by this standard? Barabra Bush wrte a book about her dog. Is she a zoologist?? My cousin Dimitri (a lawyer) has self-published innumereable books on theology, philosophy, the origin of life itself!! He's an idiot. But, by your standradm he is a thologican, philosopher and biologist!! On the other hand, my couisn Gemma is a research geo-physicist and is truly extremely knowedgeble in her field. She has published in all of the major academic jounals, yet know one knows whoi the hell she is. Rand is famous, Rand wrote a bunch of crap that included mention of the mind and the brain and soon. The only difference bwteen Rand and my cousij Dimitri is fame. New category proposal: famous charlatans. We should, eat leats, have a catgeory ion charmatans thogh, in all seriosuness: Uri Geller, L.Ron, Ayn Rand, UFOlogist, astrologists. And one on debunkers too: James Randi, etc..

I'm sure there are other differences, but let's not get derailed here. I'm not even sure whether Rand ever wrote anything that might be considered as philosophy of the mind. If I'm right, then we can settle this issue without worrying about whether Rand's ramblings are more legitimate than your cousin's. Alienus 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am removing Rand from this category. There seems to be adequate grounds for debate and fact checking. As for her removal from other categories that are appropriate I remain your humble antagonist. As to her inclusion in "Cult Leaders" I will revert it till the stars melt and all matter in the universe is compressed into a small puddle of goo. Thank you for your time and attention.Billyjoekoepsel 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you remember, I opposed her inclusion in "Cult leaders". I did, however, support her inclusion in a hypothetical "Alleged Cult Leaders" category, since she has been alleged to have led a cult. As nobody is creating this category, this is a moot point. Alienus 19:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Charlatans category, I tell you. How does one go about proposing a new category anyway?--Lacatosias 09:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lac, the rule on Wikipedia is to be bold. Within reason, if you think something should be a particular way, it's up to you to do it. If there is opposition, then you need to deal with it to build a consensus. Otherwise, you do what you want. It's a libertarian paradise. Alienus 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Work out your differences here, not in edit summaries. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that something should be worked out but Alienus will not hear any argument. This person is the only editor on this page that seems to think Ayn belongs in this category and is more than willing to disrupt everything to make this minute statement. Along with Alienus' open and long standing animosity to Ayn Rand and Objectivism in general it is clear that this person will never change their mind. This points have been discussed and hashed over and mulled over and jawed about till most people are sick of the subject. At that point Alienus came back and started it all up again. This person has nothing but hatred for this subject .

My fix to this problem would be to place a sentence in the controversies section relating to the “Real Fact” that many people disagree over Ayn’s stance on LGBT rights. I’m sure that there are adequate citations to prove this much is true. Billyjoekoepsel 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Another option might be to ban the more irritating individuals. It is not clear to me that Alienus has a legitimate case. Indeed, when I first discovered this Wikipedia entry I thought it was a smear job targeting an admittedly controversial figure. Much effort is expended in airing what others may or may not have thought of her and comparatively little on representing her teachings for people to accept or reject. She was a more recent participant in debates over rights which were popular back in the 1890s when William Graham Sumner and Edward Bellamy presented their conflicting visions with widespread effect.translator 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, we're not ready to have the Protection removed, because LaszloWalrus and Billyjoekoepsel have agreed to vandalize the LGBT Rights Opposition category on sight, and are not participating in any sort of factual discussion here. The way Wikipedia works, on those occasions when it does work, is that disputes are tackled in Talk, not battled over using edit warring or threats of bans. Lazslo and Billy need to reject their earlier commitment to an edit war against me, and instead discuss the issue here. Otherwise, they have no intellectual leg to stand on.

The problem, as I see it, is that most people who bother editing Ayn Rand are fans, sometimes even rabid ones. This means that the editors are comprised from a self-selected and highly partial minority. My goal is for the article to be factual and neutral. That's why, for example, I fought to keep the reference to Nietzsche as an influence (in the summary box). His influence is a simple, uncontroversial fact, but it was opposed by those who dislike this connection. Likewise, the ARI is an important reference for us to externally link to, but it would have been POV to allow the removal of the link to ARI Watch, which is why I fought to keep that balance. Note that being influenced by Nietzsche is not a mark of shame and ARI Watch opposes ARI, not Ayn Rand, so neither of these have been anti-Rand changes. They were, however, pro-truth and anti-orthodoxy.

The current dispute is much the same, in that some people want to hide the facts of the matter because they dislike them. Let's be frank here: If I spoke out publicly to the effect that homosexuality is immoral and disgusting, and insisted on my right to fire gays at will, nobody in their right mind would deny that I oppose LGBT rights. Yet Rand said precisely these things. Where's the controversy? Nobody has addressed this, and until they do, they have no excuse to hide Rand's opposition to LGBT rights. Alienus 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar new readers are with this fracas but it isn't going to go away easily. People that love Ayn Rand will revert this kind of thing in perpetuity and people that hate her will fight to the death to include anything derogatory.

I don't know what should be done in a case like this. I do know that it is more than just Laszlo and Alienus. There are now seven people that have made arguments to delete the "LGBT Rights Opposition" category. If there is such a thing as a consensus in these matters I think 7 to 1 against constitutes a fairly high probability that more people will disagree with this categorization than will ever agree with it in the future.

What happens next is anybody's guess.Billyjoekoepsel 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The following was written by a known wikipedia terrorist that has admitted on their own talkpage that they are engaging in "civil disobedience" and has quite plainly stated a disrespect for the processes and administration that runs it. All that they say now is irrelevant and every edit this person makes should (and will) be highly scrutinized. Billyjoekoepsel 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The following list of people ostensibly for and against the inclusion of the "LGBT rights opposition" category does not represent actual voting, just the incomplete and imperfect research of Billyjoekoepsel. It does not represent the opinions of extant editors, features bad spelling, and is in no way binding upon us.

Despite the fact that it is written entirely by Billy, the lists are outdented so that they looks like someone else's text. I have tried to correct this error but Billy responded with edit-warring and vulgarity (both in edit comments and in the sort of inflamatory text that was inserted ahead of this warning). Rather than take his bait, I'm simply going to add this disclaimer so that nobody is misled by what he's done. Alienus 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Against the Category

1. 64.167.172.163

2. 66.27.122.84

3. 68.7.212.152

4. JRobbins

5. LaszloWalrus

6. billyjoekoepsel

7. RL0919

8. translator

9. Trodel - I may change if better i.e. reputable verifiable sources were available. abstain for now

For the Category

1. Alienus

Even if we say all the anonymous users are the same person it is still 6 to 1. Does this mean anything to anyone? Billyjoekoepsel 05:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A few points.

1) The word is "category", not "catigory". Trust me on this one: I own a dictionary.

2) It is wildly inappropriate for you to sign other people's names onto a list. Even if this were the sort of issue that could be settled by a straw poll (and it's clearly not), it would be up to extant editors to sign for themselves. This isn't just a point of order; your list has errors that reveal your bias.

3) Thank you for admitting that this is all about "loving" Ayn Rand. You know what? What motivates me is something far deeper than your love of Ayn Rand; my love of the truth. Since the truth is that she opposed LGBT rights, I will let that truth be heard. As for hating her, I prefer not to get emotionally involved with dead strangers.

4) That you again for proving my point: you have still failed to address the facts of this matter. Can you do so or are you conceding them?

5) I appreciate your love letter on my Talk page. It made my day. Alienus 12:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Point #1 Spell check someone else.

Point #2 I'm through talking to you. Its a waste of my real life. Billyjoekoepsel 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In regard to my name being on the list, let me say that I still hold the position that this category listing is inappropriate. So I'm fine with my name being on Billyjoekoepsel's list. I've been away from Wikipedia for the last several days. I'll look into addressing the more recent lengthy arguments from Alienus over the weekend, but in summary they are just more of the same and didn't change my mind at all. -- RL0919 13:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RL0919. I don't think anyone will be upset to be on this list. All you have to do is look through the archives and look up these names for yourself and you will see their strong opposition. Now the number of people that dissent has reached 11 and they include Objectivism (OC), Objectivism (ARI), Objectivism critics and people that just loth Ayn. Its a group of 11 people that probably couldn't agree on any other issue in this article. Billyjoekoepsel 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I know at least one person upset by who is intentionally omitted from that list. Alienus 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive please?

As it has gotten quiet around here as of late so maybe someone could Archive some of this page. It has reached 172 kilobytes. That's over 4 times larger that the Ayn Rand page itself. 00:50, 20 February 2006 Billyjoekoepsel

Moved much over to Archive 3. Poor Yorick 08:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This is much better. Billyjoekoepsel 10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

From beyond the grave

Would anyone care to explain how Rand's opposition to the feminist and sexual liberation movement, as outlined in The New Left (1971) is compatible with the notion that she did not oppose the gay rights movement? After all, the gay rights movement is a sexual liberation movement. Alienus 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I will do my best, but this is not an issue I know a lot about. Getting right down to brass tacks the question is: Do you have a right to refuse to have intercourse with someone because you don't like the color of their hair, their choice of clothing or some annoying habit? (This is a yes or no question)

If you answered yes, then you agree with Rand that people may refrain from doing something they find unpleasant, and back when she was born U.S. Presidents referred to trade as commercial intercourse.

Now for the hard part: When Nathaniel Branden sold a tape explaining aspects of the past he made heated reference to Rand having said something that insulted a roomful of non-heterosexual admirers. He thought this was a blunder, and I agree. The LP position is that laws forcing people or companies to hire based on racial quotas or other profiling gimmicks ought to be repealed. LP candidates admit that this is not a convenient position for a politician, but it is consistent with their political principles. Unlike Rand, the LP is alive today and willing to answer on this issue, albeit without much enthusiasm. I do not see this as about Rand, but about the difference between choosing and being forced. translator 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I answered no; I should not have the right to hire and fire on an arbitrary basis. As it happens, it's actually part of my job to hire the best people and fire the worst, where best and worst are defined solely in terms of job performance.

Anything less would be as unfair to these workers as it would be to the company. Anything else should be as illegal as it is unfair. After all, the economy as a whole suffers when business is run on an irrational basis, such as bigotry. Note that quotas also deviate from hiring the best people, since they would limit me to hiring the best person from a specified list of minorities, as opposed to the best person overall.

Now that we've established what I'm not, we can move on. After all, this isn't about me, it's about Rand. We know Rand opposed the feminist and sexual liberation movements, and talked about it in that book. Do we have any reason at all to exclude gay rights from the latter category?

Forget the Branden tape: we already know that Rand called homosexuality sick and wrong. There is no question that she was hostile towards homosexuality. The only question that remains (in the minds of some, anyhow) is whether she opposed the gay rights movement explicitly.

Now, I think we already have the answer to that, but I'm giving you the opportunity to show me why I'm wrong. Do you remember Rand saying anything in that book that clears her of these charges? Alienus 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In my understanding, Alienus has evidence of something, which I am sure then that he can cite properly. If he can do so, and the rest of you cannot disprove him with equally cited material, then there's no reason that it shouldn't be included. If it is clear that she is anti-homosexual, then it isn't POV to say that she is, it's POV to say whether that's a good thing or not. Having seen this, I felt I had to weigh in as a non-involved person in this discussion.

KV 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

KV, thanks for weighing in. Frankly, I'm embarassed that people not intimately involved in this mess have to observe it. I've tried repeatedly to avoid an edit war, and then to get this Protection removed so we can move on. In the interests of progress, I have a suggested compromise.

First, I want to make clear that I am in no way backing up from my supported assertion that Ayn Rand opposed LGBT rights on the whole. However, as per the libertarian stance, she did support certain LGBT rights (as a side-effect of wanting to limit government), including same-sex marriage. Therefore, just as the Outright Libertarians are classified in the category of "LGBT rights organizations" and "LGBT rights opposition", Rand has likewise earned a dual classification.

Rand is not, in and of herself, an organization, so the first category doesn't fit, though the second does. However, the Outright Libertarians are also listed in the very broad category of being related to "LGBT civil rights". Therefore, I propose that we end this logjam by adding both "LGBT civil rights" and "LGBT rights opposition" to the article. This accurately reflects the mixed bag that is the libertrian perspective on homosexuality and is just the sort of fair comprimise that makes few people happy but preserves the truth in all its facets.

Anyone oppose? Alienus 18:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This IS about including Ayn Rand in "LGBT rights opposition." The above suggestion addresses none of the diverse objections from Wikipedia editors to the category. The Ayn Rand and Objectivist related articles are not your blog. Billyjoekoepsel 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is about including Rand in any category she fits in. For some people, it may be about excluding her from embarassing categories. Those people are motivated by bias, hence irrelevant.

Anyway, I was waiting for someone to oppose my compromise. The waiting is over. Now we move on to the part where we build a consensus that excludes people like you.

As for addressing objections, that has already been accomplished. What this compromise does is address the one remaining objection, which is that Rand did not uniformly oppose LGBT rights, but actually supported some. This makes her much like the Outright Libertarians, which is why I suggested the same solution: include her in all relevant categories, pro or con gay rights. Alienus 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just read the discussions about labeling this article as "LGBT rights opposition", so I am new to this thread. Much has been said and important references visited. So, it is my understanding that Alienus has not presented a valid rebuttal (16 Feb 2006 19:49 UTC) to the solid and consistent arguments presented by RL0919 (13 Feb 2006 01:22 UTC). Additionally, it is my POV that Alienus' arguments suggest a superficial comprehension of Objectivism and Philosophy of Science itself. I do not know how arbitration works in Wikipedia, but this thread shows people discussing a serious subject using different levels of regard to language accuracy and profundity, and scientific rigour. Let’s not forget what Wikipedia is -- an encyclopaedia, a source of documented knowledge that is (and will be) consumed by real people all around the world.

It is not my intent to raise any hard feelings on you, Alienus, but that is my honest judgement. Adjes 27 Feb 2006 00:42 GMT.

The problem with speaking in terms of conclusions is that many people will be unsatisfied and will demand that you support your conclusions. This is the case here, as you've shared some unsupported conclusions that I just can't put any weight to at this time. For example, you claim that my rebuttal of RL's arguments was "invalid", but neither you nor he have shown how this is the case. Empty claims have no weight. Likewise, you make some broad generalizations about my knowledge level without offering even a clue of how you arrived at them. In short, your entire message amounts to nothing more than a statement of generalized disagreement, which I politely note then disregard as unsupported. Alienus 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting her simultaneously in "LGBT civil rights" and "LGBT rights opposition" seems to me to be a blatant contradiction, and the very fact that it is suggested indicates the highly POV nature of classifying Rand in those categories. In any case, those categories are HIGHLY POV and for that reason alone (and in addition to previous arguments), I believe Rand should be left out of both of them LaszloWalrus 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes A != A. In the case of Rand's views of homosexuality, they don't fit neatly into either the pro or con category. Rather than pointlessly debating which one they fit better into, my compromise is to show both sides and let the reader decide. That's how NPOV works. Alienus 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This article has been protected for a ridiculously long time. Looking at the arguments, it looks like it's a pointless bit of warring over a category.

To help to resolve the dispute, I propose that editors involved contemplate the following principle, adopted 6-2 by the arbitration committee in the Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) arbitration case:

• Nature of categories
  • Categories are a guide to readers to assist them in finding information. They are not part of an article and need not reflect established fact. For example, Golan Heights can legitimately be included in both the categories Geography of Syria and Geography of Israel.

If we can accept categories in this light, I think we can agree that they're actually quite useful. Editors can accept the presence of the disputed category on the understanding that it doesn't amount to a factual statement about Ayn Rand's opinions on sexual orientation (which could well, in any case, have matured over the course of her long life).

On that proposal, I now unprotect that article. --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked for an unprotect some time ago, but was refused. It was only protected because LaszloWalrus launched an edit war against me. Alienus

Based on this ruling, I'm going to go ahead and restore the category. Alienus 00:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Between what Tony wrote here and on his Talk page, it's clear that Rand deserves this category because she spoke publicly against homosexuals and gay rights. If LaszloWalrus has any argument to refute this, he needs to come here right now and offer it. Failure to do so must be understood to constitute bad faith, as he's removed the text repeatedly without coming here to Talk about it. Alienus 01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed by the fact that, even though he refuses to explain himself here, Laszlo keeps controversially reverting the article. I'm even more amazed that, in an attempt to be neutral, nobody's banned him yet. What are you waiting for? Alienus 02:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify my comment above. It was not, and should not be read as, a ruling on content. I'm not God the Father, and I firmly deny being either Son or Holy Ghost. I'm just another Wikipedia editor. I do not have an opinion on whether this particular category is appropriate for this particular article. I simply observe that the Arbitration committee, as a matter of interpretation, has in a fairly recent case decided that the presence of an article in a category is not to be taken as a statement of fact about the subject of the article. Their principles are not binding or definitive, but they tend to adopt principles that may sometimes be useful in resolving disputes. I offer the principle in that light. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see "3 Categories" section.--TJ 14:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC (glbt)

• Was Rand a significant figure in opposing gay rights, or just another kook with an opinion?
• Was her opinion, or those of her followers, important in a substantial way?
• Were her statements on the subject meaningful, powerful, and influential, or merely a side note to her beliefs?

Ronabop 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. I'd like to venture some answers.

• Rand's popularity rules out dismissing her as just another gay-bashing kook. Objectivism has had broad influence on a large number of people, and particularly upon the libertarian political movement.
• It was important to her many, many followers, including the ones who used it to justify trying to turn gays straight, and all the ones influenced to oppose government support for gay rights.
• The nature of Objectivism is such that there can be little distinction between Rand's personal views and official doctrine, so we can't classify these as a side note. Moreover, she wrote an entire book dedicated to opposing the liberal rights movements (including feminism, sex lib and gay rights), and talked about it in public on a number of occasions. Her statements were clear, meaningful and powerful; she used words like "immoral" and "disgusting". I would add that her opposition to homosexuality is integral in her view of sex roles, which forms a key component of her ethical philosophy. Alienus 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, there's no getting around the fact that only spoke of homosexuality in a LEGAL CONTEXT once, saying that laws against homosexuality should be repealed. As far as that statement goes, it is in suppport of gay rights. Any other argument involves conjecture based on what she wrote on other topics, and is POV. Similarly, the book against "liberalism" you refer to has NOTHING about gay rights. LaszloWalrus 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, neither "immoral" nor "disgusting" were strictly legal terms. Rather, they seem intensely personal and judgemental. Rand publically supported removing the legal barriers that might prevent someone with negative personal views towards homosexuality (such as herself) from discriminating against homosexuals in key realms such as (private) employment and housing. Yes, she incidentally supported a subset of gay rights, as a side-effect of her minarchism, but she actively opposed the gay rights movement and all governmental protections against discrimination in the private sector. The strongest argument you could make, therefore, is that she belongs in both the support and opposition categories, and I'm willing to concede that for the sake of consensus. Let's list her dually, and let people make their own decisions. Alienus 21:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Laszlo has added the LGBT Rights Activists category, alongside LGBT Rights Opposition. I endorse this compromise solution. If anyone objects to it, I would like to hear the grounds. Otherwise, I'd be thrilled to move on to more interesting issues. Alienus 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see new "3 Catgories" section--TJ 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Peikoff and Aristotle

I have edited out the line that claims Peikoff said that Rand was the greatest philosopher ever. He says in Objectivism Through Induction (CD set 1, disc 11) that he too considers Aristotle, not Rand, to be the greastest philosopher. LaszloWalrus 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Rand??

Isn't this article about Ayn Rant, the famous philosophaster and nut-job?? Hey, that's it. New category: Philosophasters. Sums it all up in one word!! --Lacatosias 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge the merit of your categorization. However, if she's famous as a philosophaster, then I'm sure you could come up with some citations to support your edit, right? Alienus 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Defintion: A pretender to philosophy. It's an analytic truth!! (unsigned)

I would say that it's a controversial claim that needs to be sourced and cited. So, for example, if you can show me an essay from a professor of philosophy in which Rand is referred to as a philophaster, that may be worth including under criticisms. Otherwise, regardless of the truth of the claim (analytic or otherwise), we can't include it here due to NPOV constraints. Again, I'm making no personal judgement (read: original research) about how pretend her philosophy might be. Alienus 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The category was removed, and since you offer no citations, I have no basis upon which to object. Alienus 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing someone as a "philophaster" is inherently biased. Almost every philosophers imaginable (including such figures as Aristotle, Hegel, Sartre, Marx, etc.) have been called philophasters by someone. It would be like having a category for "idiots" or "jerks" or "evil people." LaszloWalrus 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The other category you removed is a trickier issue. There are multiple mentions of "cult" in the article, referring to essays and even books that characterize Objectivism as a cult. I'm sure you don't agree with them, but I'm not sure whether there isn't a sufficiently strong case to leave the category. Alienus 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked up "cult" in the dictionary here are the three definitions I found: 1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. 2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. 3. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. Since Objectivism is atheistic and explicitly rejects religion and has no specific "practices", 1 and 2 are out, leaving only 3 for consideration. Whether admiration for Ayn Rand is misplaced or excessive is inherently POV; since Objectivism has little to do with Ayn Rand as a person, this excludes definition 3 as well, otherwise everyone who started a movement and was admired would be a cult leader. You would have to categorize Gandhi, Rothbard, Martin Luther King, Betty Friedan, etc. as "cult leaders," an utter absurdity. Let's leave "cult leaders" for those who started organizations demanding faith. To paraphrase Alienus, you have to judge Objectivism on its own terms, not colored through an anti-Objectivist lens. LaszloWalrus 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look in those articles, I don't think you'll find mention of the world "cult", much less in the context of essays and books that speak of these people as cult leaders. How do you account for this? Alienus 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

These people (with the exception of Rothbard) are less controversial. Also, their movements were more widespread and many other people were responsible for creating them as well (for example, it would be absurd to claim that King single-handedly started the modern civil rights movement, although he played an enormously important role). Since Objectivism isn't a religion, given it's explicit atheism and rejection of mysticism and authority as means of knowledge, it boils down to whether or not Objectivists have "excessive admiration" for Ayn Rand, a judgement which is subjective; further, one could know almost nothing about Ayn Rand personally (apart from her ideas) and be an Objectivist. The early "schisms" that occurred in the Objectivist movement were due largely to intellectual differences (and occasional personal disagreements), not because of some sort of lack of "reverance" for Rand. Also, the opinions of a handful of writers do not warrant classifying Rand as a cult leader, in my view; after all, you could find far more writers who would classify George W. Bush as a "war criminal" or John Kerry as a "traitor," or Daniel Pipes as an "Islamophobe" or PETA as a terrorist organization (due to its alleged connections with the Animal Liberation Front) but those classifications involve biased judment calls that don't have a place in an encyclopedia. LaszloWalrus 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole ot of text, yet you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask about MLK or GWB or anyone else. I asked why, given that the article has multiple references to essays and books that call Rand a cult leader, we should exclude her from that category. All I see is tu quoque and special pleading, both of which are fallacies. Alienus 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, here's the short answer: she wasn't a cult leader. My point is that the fact that some writers call her a cult leader does not ipso facto mean she IS a cult leader. The examples that I provided involving Bush, Kerry etc. were not meant as examples of tu quoque or special pleading, but to show (by analogy) the absurdity of classifying Rand as a cult leader. Those who would classify her as a cult leader (even among her many detractors) are the exception. Here are two quotations from Rand herself:

1) "I regard the spread of Objectivism through today's culture as an intellectual movement -- i.e., a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas -- but not as an organized movement. The existence (and the later policies) of NBI contributed to certain misconceptions among some of its students and the public at large, which tended to put Objectivism in an equivocal position in this respect. I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone."

2) "My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think -- to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction -- to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult."

(I should note that this second quotation is in response to a letter from a fan offering cult-like allegiance.) LaszloWalrus 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)