1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou did exactly that to me with your previous knee jerk response, precisely what you're accusing me of here, that's your standard tactic and it was you that started it.
Obviously, you don't even want to discuss it, as you keep omitting from your quoting of my posts the bulk of my points. This is a standard tactic of those who want to avoid a substantive debate.
I understand the book fine; what the author wants her readers to embrace is morally reprehensible.
I could see from the beginning you weren't interested in discussing this honestly with your 'It made Roark happy to blow up the building' or 'you can blow up buildings if you're a rugged individualist'. Already I could see where it was going.
Mott was right.
Mind you I'm starting to think...you're serious...haha...nah, c'mon, I give you a little more credit than that.
It's not Roark that is the criminal, a condition of his work was that it would be built as he designed it. If it were not going to be built as he designed it, it would not have taken it on and everyone would have lived happily ever after, the plot for No.1 great novela take down of 'The Fountainhead' to be called 'The Sewer Drain'.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidHe designed it; he never owned it. The actual owners decided to make changes in the design during its construction. He regarded that as a "desecration" of his "Creator" work which entitled him to destroy it.
Or because it was never his in the first place?
@wajoma saidI most certainly did not.
You did exactly that to me with your previous knee jerk response, precisely what you're accusing me of here, that's your standard tactic and it was you that started it.
I could see from the beginning you weren't interested in discussing this honestly with your 'It made Roark happy to blow up the building' or 'you can blow up buildings if you're a rugged individualist'. Alr ...[text shortened]... m starting to think...you're serious...haha...nah, c'mon, I give you a little more credit than that.
I'm tying Roark's actions into the Randian philosophy point YOU quoted. That you don't seem to want to discuss that is your decision.
@no1marauder saidYup.
He designed it; he never owned it. The actual owners decided to make changes in the design during its construction.
So it wasn’t his. He has 0 say in the matter of changes.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI gave a full answer, you snipped less than a sentence to impress us with your mind reading powers. As part of my answer I said that if they had or hadn't agreed to the blowing up of the building in the event of a breach of contract was not the point, but you chose to focus on that tiny piece. I suspected you weren't serious but at that point it was confirmed, so I gave some of the same back, enjoy.
Obviously, you don't even want to discuss it, as you keep omitting from your quoting of my posts the bulk of my points. This is a standard tactic of those who want to avoid a substantive debate.
I understand the book fine; what the author wants her readers to embrace is morally reprehensible.
@no1marauder saidThere was an agreement that it would be built as he designed it. Can you at least confirm you understand that point.
He designed it; he never owned it. The actual owners decided to make changes in the design during its construction. He regarded that as a "desecration" of his "Creator" work which entitled him to destroy it.
@wajoma saidNo, I didn't; the site did.
I gave a full answer, you snipped less than a sentence to impress us with your mind reading powers. As part of my answer I said that if they had or hadn't agreed to the blowing up of the building in the event of a breach of contract was not the point, but you chose to focus on that tiny piece. I suspected you weren't serious but at that point it was confirmed, so I gave some of the same back, enjoy.
The lack of Keating's or anyone else's acquiescence to Roark's blowing up the building IF he was displeased with the finished product is a "minor point", how exactly?
@wajoma saidWhen he made that agreement with Keating (who was not the owner of the building), he was surely aware that the remedy for breach of it was not that he could blow up the building.
There was an agreement that it would be built as he designed it. Can you at least confirm you understand that point.
@kewpie saidNot so fast Kewpie. How bout you get around a seminal point made in Rand's writings. Suzy calls us selfish a lot, but tell me where I am wrong here? Use logic, please.
I think you've proved your point, No.1. Neither of Ajay/Wajay can debate.
One cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution, or else there is nothing to distribute. Libs here want stuff, but they never regard where it comes from. Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? Why is it immoral for me to desire, but moral for others to desire?
Why is it immoral for me to make and keep something of value, but moral to give it away. And if it is not moral for me to keep it, how is it Possibly moral for others to accept it?
This type of questioning stems from the old 'tis better to give than to receive'. Is it, if morality is figured into the discussion?
The need of the creator comes before the need of the beneficiary, does it not? It is like we praise an act of charity, but we look down on someone who achieves.
Anyway, ,something to chew on. With all due respects, some here have leanings of another old slogan, 'From those with means to those without means". Hmmmmmm
@no1marauder saidBut the agreement was made, correct? And that if Roark thought it would not have been built as he designed it he would have had nothing to do with it. So Keating was not the owner? You’re getting desperate. People are often employed who have the authority to make those decisions on behalf of the owner or owners who may have only been money men, this is stupid speculating on this detail.
When he made that agreement with Keating (who was not the owner of the building), he was surely aware that the remedy for breach of it was not that he could blow up the building.