Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    reading books, jogging,listening to music of billy joel, roger cicero and christina stuermer, and of course, anything and everything to do with Ayn Rand!

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright

Madhavi's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. I think Matt Bomer (of White Collar neal caffrey fame) would look epic as Ragnar. I can think of no other actor more attractive than him. as Hank Rearden- Christian Bale as Dagny Taggart- Rachel Weiz as Fransisco- benedict cumberbatch (of Sherlock fame) my DREAM Atlas Shrugged starcast!
  2. Accepted. If i knew the person well, and admired him, I would do the same probably. But in your first post, you hadn't mentioned details such as - you knew the person in question and admired him/her too. So i misinterpreted what you meant.
  3. Exactly. if A kills B , because B provoked A suddenly and gravely, then the offence committed by A will NOT be 'murder', rather it would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. (atleast according to the Indian Penal Code). And punishment for an offence like culpable homicide is obviously less as compared to the punishment meted out for first degree murder.
  4. I absolutely support @kevin delaney. I would also prefer to have a casual chat in a restaurant/cafe on my first date. talking to your date is the first step towards checking if you are compatible, or just poles apart in ideas and interests. but I would also LOVE to go to a zoo or a museum or or maybe a bookstore(provided the guy is as obsessed with books as I am). perfect opportunities for stimulating conversations!! and @secondhander- seriously??? on the FIRST date??!!
  5. YAY!! Epic, just amazing. But the success was hardly unexpected. She is by far the best author I have ever read, and probably will ever read . If she was alive today I would have told her "Way to go, Ms. Rand!!"
  6. what I fail to understand is the logic behind Antisemitism. Do people who propagate Antisemitism actually believe themselves? And how can humans inflict so much unthinking torture upon others? torture without reason , or logic, or sense or rationality. this excerpt is from www.simpletoremember.com Historians have classified six explanations as to why people hate the Jews: Economic -- "We hate Jews because they possess too much wealth and power." Chosen People -- "We hate Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people." Scapegoat -- "Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles." Deicide -- "We hate Jews because they killed Jesus." Outsiders, -- "We hate Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.) Racial Theory -- "We hate Jews because they are an inferior race. With the Enlightenment in the late 18th century, many Jews rushed to assimilate. Anti-Semitism should have stopped. Instead, for example, with the Nazis came the cry, in essence: "We hate you, not because you're different, but because you're trying to become like us! We cannot allow you to infect the Aryan race with your inferior genes." ‚ÄčI read and re- read these statements. but not one of them makes sense. so how, how do millions of people still believe them? how did the nazis sell their idea among the germans and WHY did the germans not protest against them? Why didn't they just use their basic common sense to realise that what the nazis were propagating was plain and utter trash? some historians believe that the nazis propagated anti semitism for political reasons? how so? how can a country's government derive satisfaction from mass scale extermination? what was there end gain??????? and obviously, Nazism and the the set up of the extensive concentration camps could not have been possible without considerable support from the common population. so why was antisemitism so pervasive among the masses?
  7. absolutely. scarlet would look totally appropriate. rachel weisz would look good as Dagny, i think.
  8. how would Benedict Cumbertatch of 'Sherlock' fame look as Fransisco d' Anconia? i can't help thinking that he would look absolutely perfect as fransisco! or what about Ian Somerhalder?
  9. yes, Rearden would still have fallen in love with Dagny, she would have been his one true love, no matter who his wife was. But had his wife been a loving, understanding woman, sharing his ideas, he would not have kept his love for Dagny a secret. He would have told his wife openly, because she didnt deserve to be cheated on. He would have amicably separated from his wife before courting Dagny. Perhaps his feeling of guilt would be magnified, but that would not have stopped him from being honest with his wife. His wife, unlike Lilian, would leave him, and understand his love for Dagny the same way Rearden understood Dagny's love for Galt. The same way Rearden felt no pain when DAgny fell for Galt, because he knew Dagny was completely happy with Galt, perhaps the same way even Reareden's wife would feel no pain (although this is difficult to ascertain).
  10. wow. this is something new @dennis hardin i have just begun to read the fountainhead, so i cant comment on Dominique's character. But Kira wasn't a sado masochist. But then it has been mentioned in the book that 'Leo held her as if he was a slave trader' and she was a slave' . i have put up another query post #16. Could you perhaps help me?
  11. thanks a lot @intellectualammo i read this para today and again a query cropped up in my mind initially , kira felt pure and hallowed because she remembered the previous night, which she had spent in leo's bed. as she was approaching the palace garden, why did her feet slow down? what does sacrilege refer to? does it mean that kira considered spending time/sleeping with andrei a sacrilege, because she herself felt sacred, pure? what is her "desire" in this paragraph?
  12. why did Kira say this? isn't it safer to remain neutral when one is in doubt? or make an effort to acquire actual facts to reach a conclusion about the two opposing parties? why did Kira support the girl who had been boycotted, without making an effort to understand what the girl had done?
  13. when we talk about great ancient civilisations , how can we forget the indus valley or harappan civilisation? by far the oldest 4000bc-1500 bc. on the planet. the most ancient urban system that ever existed.
  14. how can someone love another as 'a means of survival'? what does this even mean? kira loved andrei. yes she did. not like she loved leo, not sexually. she loved him as he was her friend, her confidant, a person with whom she could share her deepest thoughts and as someone who understood her.
  15. i fail to understand this statement. how can altruism or selflessness be equated with sado masochism? kira wasnt sado masochistic as she did not derive pleasure from self infliction of pain. but she was , to a certain extent, altruistic, evident through these incidents: a. kira, without bothering about her deplorable financial condition, sent eatables to her family when irina informed her that they were starving. moreover, she spent all of her money to purchase milk and other neccessities for irinas family, when maria pertovna was dying. now, i am not saying that kira was self sacrificing in the above incidents, she was merely selfless and wished to help her family, without caring about the possible repurcussions of her actions on her own sustenance. b.) she gave leo the bread she got from the university, even if it meant that she she would have to go to bed on an empty stomach. she even lied to leo and told him that she had already taken her meal. again, she was not self sacrificing. her love for leo and her desire to see him satiated was more than her desire to eat and satisfy herself. and she did not complain. leo's health and happiness would make her happy. if this is not altruism ie. selflessness , what is? and in the light of the above points, altruism is not sadomasochism in practice. but there is another para in the book: clearly, kira derived no pleasure in sleeping with andrei. she had even begun to hate her body. she wanted to 'escape' from her situation. she was evidently doing something, for leos sake, due to which she was actually suffering. now, ayn rand believes in the virtue of selfishness. this act on kiras part is not only selfless, but even self sacrificing. she sacrificed her own pleasure for leo's sake. help me out! kira is one enigma of a person!
  • Create New...