Very true, I think. +1

This site can handle some of that, but it is more of a jumping off place. If you 're interested in studying the philosophy, there are many sites to help you do that, including just choosing to read her non -fiction. I think this site attracts the more politically minded individuals. It is the fourth realm of the philosophy, after all. Sometimes as people discuss these current affairs they appreciate the Objectivist take on a given situation. "I knew it was wrong but the philosophy explains in depth why." It can happen that we get it wrong or focus on a less relevant aspect. Discovering that is the case should be a driver for further study.

Unfortunately a clear, thorough understanding of AR values is not completely instinctive. It does have to be taught, and if it is not us teaching it, then no one else will. A gravitation toward AR values may be instinctive, but there is so much baggage that must be unlearned that some instruction is necessary.

Acceptance of nonsense, dishonesty, and evil is intolerable. We agree.

Did he at least pat, or was it a sneaky touch?

Mimi; And they're often not willing to state their reasons for the down pointing. Cowardly at best.

Robbie; I was in that post, and in this one as well simply requesting that you be open and honest about your purposes and reasoning rather than hiding behind rhetoric and deflection. If your reasoning is rational and logical, why would you not wish to lay it out and allow others to comment or question it?

khalling; I've so far rejected the 'Hide' option. And as I've said before, I enjoy and find interest in many of the branchings that occur on many posts. I just have no problem countering those comments intended to hijack and ask those doing so to be more open and honest about their intents and their reasoning, if any such exists.

Now you get it. But is it just her ideas, the books, and the movie or does it include the willingness of other Objectivist to point out or demonstrate to others, the soundness and common sense rationality of the philosophy as well as the cost to all of us of the evils and impacts of collectivism and the true intents of those wishing to rule, loot us, and ride through life taking from others.

jbrenner; You and I have discussed men of integrity in another post. Included in integrity is openness and honesty about one's intents and willingness to lay one's opinions and reasoning out for other's to rationally contest or question. Personally, I have absolutely no interest in just getting along if it means accepting nonsense, dishonesty in discussion, and promoting evil.

jbrenner; AS is the highest selling novel of all time. My interpretation of the gains and influence of AR's philosophy is a positive note in today's world. I don't wish to control people on a topic. There are often interesting branchings that arise in many posts. That can often be educational and entertaining. I see those as good things. What I reject and argue against is the intent of some to simply hijack posts and hide their true intents rather than post openly and be confronted on the merits of their reasoning.

Robbie; I don't mind the heat. All I did was to draw out your reason and irrationalities for your attacks on AR into the open. My intent was to allow you to further demonstrate the irrationality of your arguments. I think you quite adequately illustrated that your arguments and argument style is so very similar to socialists and Marxist throughout history and the evilness of the wish of some religionist to control and rule others. If any wonder why the numbers of young Americans are rejecting religion, reading your comments and hijacking of other's posts to gain some understanding.

Hiraghm; I'm sorry you interpret my desire to turn anything into an echo chamber, I'm simply asking those that wish to express there differences with Rand to post those, not to hijack other's posts.

I missed those requests. That must have been interesting.

Excellent response khalling. +1

Well that's interesting. Once again, rather than addressing the issue and questions of the post, you take it to a personal level and imply that those that are Objectivist are 'mind numbers robots' 'regurgitating pap', and promote yourself as a rational, thinking being.

The 1st question in this post: Why are these people attracted to this site? Your answer appears to be that you like the movie, but consider yourself to be a greater thinker than AR or those of us that find resonance with her philosophy and writings.
The 2nd question in this post: Is it just proselytizing or is it sincere? You state that you are one that is here for 'stimulating discussion centered around AS and the themes of AS.' Yet you take every opportunity to attack the theme of AS and those that find AS to be an exemplary description of the worth of AR's thinking and philosophy.
The 3rd question in this post: Is it just an annoyance, or is it a true challenge to the Objectivist? I think your comment above answers the annoyance part, as to a challenge--you certainly aren't.
The 4th question in this post: Or is it more confirmation of the increase of AR's and 'Atlas Shrugged''s influence in our world that we should be pleased about? The more attacks and the irrationality you show the more pleased I, as one Objectivist am. I take it as just more confirmation of the growing influence of her thinking.
The 5th question in this post: Is it something Objectivists should address, ignore, or attempt to dispute? Personally, I think that anytime irrational arrogance appears on a site devoted to the movies and AR's work, it should be refuted. It won't make a difference to you but it helps to reinforce to those not fully experienced in Objectivism, how easy it is to answer the evil and nonsense influences of those that would belittle AR's achievements and how irrational they are.

Your failure here to address the post and the questions asked and instead to attempt to hijack it into some type of personal attack on the poster, and aggrandizement of yourself and what you interpret in your own mind as rational thinking, just further demonstrates the ridiculousness of your arguments and you approaches in attempt to get others to listen to them.

Maybe you should post describing all of your arguments against AR's ideas and thinking rather than hijacking other's posts. Personally, I have no need to hijack other's posts in order to discuss my personal experiences with AR's philosophy and AS.

Robbie and other Christians in Galt's Gulch Online agree with most of AR's values, and like all whose goals are not the destruction of AR values, can be welcomed if they hold to the Gulch code of conduct. Non-trolls come here to find people who share many, but not necessarily all, common values. It is possible for us to all get along.

AR's ideas have to compete in the arena of ideas just like everyone else's. Judging by book sales and the number of people who have gone to the movies so many years after her death, her ideas have withstood the test of time and are just as relevant now as they were then.