You actually called a mentality "dangerous" that you aren't even being honest about!
Instead of internalizing leftist propaganda and repeating it as fact, you should actually read the book.
"it ignores any and all counter arguments even if they really are more correct."
The most accurate characterization of that statement is that it is the exact opposite of what he philosophy actually advocates. Which you would know if you'd read Atlas Shrugged.
"On the other hand you have the zealots who take every word of their book as objective fact and will blow up a building to remind you."
In this case, you are the zealot who is taking lies told about the book as fact, and advocating violence against those who disagree with you.
And of course you have to characterize them in derogatory ways.
If Ayn Rand was so wrong, why can't you, and others like you, such as Paul Carr, be honest about what she actually said-- and address her actual arguments and philosophy, instead of lying about them and characterizing them in a derogatory fashion? Which is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing short of calling them names.
If you weren't a zealot, you'd have read the book to find out what it actually said. If you claim to have read the book, then lying about it makes you a zealot.
But worse, anti-intellectual. And that's what I really find offensive.
Instead of internalizing leftist propaganda and repeating it as fact, you should actually read the book.
"it ignores any and all counter arguments even if they really are more correct."
The most accurate characterization of that statement is that it is the exact opposite of what he philosophy actually advocates. Which you would know if you'd read Atlas Shrugged.
"On the other hand you have the zealots who take every word of their book as objective fact and will blow up a building to remind you."
In this case, you are the zealot who is taking lies told about the book as fact, and advocating violence against those who disagree with you.
And of course you have to characterize them in derogatory ways.
If Ayn Rand was so wrong, why can't you, and others like you, such as Paul Carr, be honest about what she actually said-- and address her actual arguments and philosophy, instead of lying about them and characterizing them in a derogatory fashion? Which is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing short of calling them names.
If you weren't a zealot, you'd have read the book to find out what it actually said. If you claim to have read the book, then lying about it makes you a zealot.
But worse, anti-intellectual. And that's what I really find offensive.