Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
The point i would say is that if you have issue with a certain part of someone's thinking, then you shouldn't hold up their philosophy as an unqualified good and then later, when it suddenly becomes politically expedient, say "i only like this part of her philosophy, the rest of that crap is dangerous."
It would be just as damning if a Christian Marxist did it, went around touting social revolution but later said "oh, but we need to keep religion around," in a blatant effort to increase political appeal later on.
|
Not really. While he admires Ayn Rand's books and they had a profound impact on him, he isn't an Objectivist. I don't see how that's a contradiction. It's not really much different than touting Robert E. Howard's work while not being a racist, or Robert Heinlein's without being a libertarian.
I admire both George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens a great deal. I'd recommend their books to anyone. If I were a congressman, I might even make certain of their writings required reading among my staffers. I am not a socialist, however.
|
Orwell was a socialist? I figured he was one of those radical anti-socialists. What was the point of Animal Farm then?
|
Orson wells was actually part of the "Independent Labor Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Labour_Party
Well, until they decided to take a Pro-hitler stance.
|
Orwell. Not Orson Wells
|
Whoa, how the fuck did i get those two messed up.
I blame being a low sleep.
