Talk:Randroid

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-21. The result of the discussion was Merge to Objectivist movement.

I will make a smal change to this, if no-one minds. I have heard the word "randroid" emplyed by other Objectivists about Objectivists of the more zealous and dogmatic type.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Svein Olav Nyberg (talk • contribs)

"I have heard" doesn't rally meet the criteria of WP:CITE, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding an {{unreferenced}} tag.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 13:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, there are sources, albeit internet ones, quoting people.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my interpretation, but the second paragraph seems blatently biased against young people, stating that young readers who "lack reasoned arguements" could be described as "Randroids". This statement appears to both make the assumption that young people are inherently unable to understand fully philosophy, and that all individuals who are just picking up on Ms. Rand's philosophy are of a younger age group. The context of that paragraph depicts the notion that young people are easily led by any new ideas that they initially find appealing, and as such are also less able to think independently than older individuals, as proven fact and as such presents an over-generalization to those who read this article. Though I will agknowlege that in a vast majority of situations, people's ability to think independently increases with age, that does not mean that all individuals have similar levels of independent thought, which is to say that it is humanly possible for a younger individual could have better reasoning skills than an older individual. I do not feel fully confident in deleting the paragraph, as it may have a valid point to make, I simply think that someone should: A) present the paragraph as an opinion rather than as a stated fact, and B) not generalize younger readers of Ayn Rand's writing as new to her ideas,from the context this page uses the word young I get the idea it means collage aged, as I know individuals who are over 40 who have not heard of her.--69.205.162.73 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the stuff about the Ayn Rand Institute supporting the Iraq War, because it's just not true. The ARI OPPOSES the war. LaszloWalrus 06:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are citations: [1], [2] (I realize that this one deals with the Clinton war, but it was re-released for the Bush war, because they believe the same principles apply), [3]. In addition, ARI president Yaron Brook condemned the Iraq War in this lecture [4] (and the summary says as much). I can post more sources if people are not convinced, but I hope these will suffice. LaszloWalrus 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARI now opposes how the Bush Administration is prosecuting the Iraq War, but ARI did indeed promote war against Iraq. To see quotes from the dozens of articles ARI published urging the invasion, visit Relentless Propaganda. For a good analysis of the hypocrisy of ARI’s current position visit What We Owe Our Soldiers (the quotes at the end are especially relevant to this discussion).

Links to personal websites don't count. Sorry. [User:LaszloWalrus|LaszloWalrus]] 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the first link merely quotes ARI, with explicit references you can verify on ARI's website, evidently the truth about ARI doesn't count either.

We've already had this debate, Mark. Your "dozens" of sources only total four in that article, and the list you supplied of every article that contained the word "Iraq." In addition, did you read the Raimondo article? He does not go after ARI for advocating a war in Iraq, but for the tactics and general morality of war advocated by Peikoff and ARI. Citation to your website isn't even relevant. Endlessmike 888 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I took out the Raimondo reference, because Raimondo is not commenting on the sociology of Objectivists, but specific positions some of them have taken (different sense of the word "cult"). "Randroid" is about Objectivists, not really any positions Objectivism or Objectivists take. If you include a reference about forieng policy, why not a criticism of ethics, or of any position ARI or TOC etc have taken? Endlessmike 888 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it back, it is cited. it stays. you should nominate this for deletion anyway, it is clearly just npov. --Buridan 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it is cited; it's not relevant to the article. Since you wrote that comment almost instantaneously after I posted my previous comment, you must not have read my comments. Please do. Endlessmike 888 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

it is pertinent, it discusses the nature of the randroid. --03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It discusses the nature of the randroid... without even using the word "Randroid?" The article is a criticism of the foreign policy advocated by two Objectivists. Please explain how it is relevant, because on the face of it the article does not belong in this article, but would belong in other articles. Endlessmike 888 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, it mentions the tendencies of objectivists. all randroids are objectivists, though not all objectivists are randroids. thus logically it fits. --Buridan 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Ronbot? Endlessmike 888 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)