TLD

You're talking in non-essentials. Rights can only apply to humans since morality is only needed for humans to survive. Humans have to think to make choices in life to survive; animals act on instinct.
So you cannot talk in terms of animals "deserving" to exist.
Furthermore, it would be impractical to protect them and for no one to eat them; the ramifications would be enormous. E.g. we would be overrun with them, disease would spread, etc.

You're talking in non-essentials. Rights can only apply to humans since morality is only needed for humans to survive. Humans have to think to make choices in life to survive; animals act on instinct.
So you cannot talk in terms of animals "deserving" to exist.
Furthermore, it would be impractical to protect them and for no one to eat them; the ramifications would be enormous. E.g. we would be overrun with them, disease would spread, etc.

Yes, there is a valid reason. Rand selected him as the "owner" of the philosophy, and he has been given the right to do the same.
Hierarchy at the "top" is important to guide the spread of the philosophy, to identify the errors of others, etc.

This is the kind of thinking that could make them not want to participate.
They are exposed all the time - they are outfront in the media, at universities, etc.

I believe that they want students of Obj.ism to read and gain some understanding of Rand et al before asking questions; thus their interest in addressing the type of questions often asked here is of lower priority.
It does not sound like you are giving them - the experts - enough credit; I can't believe you would think that there is a "level playing field."

More importantly, why do Students of Obj.ism think they need the experts' participation? Don't they think it is possible to learn Obj.ism well without it? I and most Obj.ists I know certainly did.

Oh hey. Johnathan13's post that I downvoted got voted back up to 0, and my post got downvoted to -3. Someone who insults expert Objectivists has his comment upvoted, while my post is downvoted by three separate individuals. A person cannot vote on their own posts, so someone besides Johnathan13 thought his post was good, and a minimum of two people besides him thought my post was bad enough to vote down.

Which proves the point I was making when I made my post. Why should a major Objectivist subject himself to coming here when a culture like this has taken root? When a user on this site disagrees with an expert on how to apply Objectivism, they don't try to understand their mistake. They just insult the expert, who knows more than them, for calling them out on it. Peikoff-bashing has become a semi-common pastime in the chat now, because heaven forbid Objectivism have identity and an expert dare tell someone that their conclusions contradict Objectivism.

The chatroom (not the forum) of this site was the last bastion of reason (that I know of) for online Objectivist social sites. Why? Because we were allowed to pass harsh judgment on people who insulted the experts we look to for guidance. When it was shown that you can get into trouble with the administration for passing harsh, deserved judgment on people like that, it set a precedent. The more consistent of an Objectivist you are, the more you have to keep your judgments to yourself in the face of people like that, and the more common they become on this site.

The rule on this site about not coming here to insult Objectivism is what preserved this site for so long. Insulting Objectivism's experts is basically a loophole to that rule. If you're going to allow people to insult the experts, at least allow the better, more consistent Objectivists on this site to stand up for them.

Why don't any Major Objectivists participate in online forums? Observe the cultural state of this and the other online forums for a potential answer.

No I didn't, just a play on words. Lighten up a little Steve.


He is a Libertarian through and through; he never fully accepted Obj.ism and simply does not qualify.
For the purpose of this thread, just focus on whether a complete Obj.ist can abandon it for a rational reason; and Smith is not rational in his counters to Obj.ism. That's a fact.
I have known many "Obj.ists" who became Libertarians, and they all made the same errors and all could not properly hold the Obj.ist label.

Therefore, no "example given and dismissed by you."

This is for those who are not playing devils advocate and want to truly get my point.
Unfortunately, the point has become less important than the realization here that many Obj.ists are too quick to rationalize to defend their positions because they have not fully grasped the principles. And that is not the "Pope" talking, thank you very much.


Actually, it isn't completely different: abandoning Obj.ism due to such an error would be the 1 rational reason to so abandon. I excluded that due to lack of evidence.

In my original post: "If someone truly understands Obj.ism and can call himself an Obj.ist, there should be no reason - and he certainly would be applying reason - to change."
Does that not sound like "understand and accept" to you?

No, accepting in one's "heart" is certainly not accepting mentally.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with Objectivist principles never fully understood and accepted (lived by) them.
That is not to say that such a person might have once thought he U&A.

What a non-Obj.ist needs to understand is that Obj.ism is a complete philosophy based on reason and rationality.
Once understood, one would have to reject R&R to some extent to reject its principles.

I don't believe that total objection to the fundamentals of Objectivism qualifies as "honest disagreement."
If a person reads Rand at all, he should understand Rand's positions on fundamental principles.
Presenting counter arguments presented by opposers of Rand's philosoophy should be considered out of place here.

I don't believe that total objection to the fundamentals of Objectivism qualifies as "honest disagreement."
If a person reads Rand at all, he should understand Rand's positions on fundamental principles.
Presenting counter arguments presented by opposers of Rand's philosoophy should be considered out of place here.

I would say it does not fit anywhere here.
Read Rand and see that there is no room for such mysticism.
Or read other posts on religion that have likely covered what you need.

I don't believe that total objection to the fundamentals of Objectivism qualifies as "honest disagreement."
If a person reads Rand at all, he should understand Rand's positions on fundamental principles.
Presenting counter arguments presented by opposers of Rand's philosoophy should be considered out of place here.

I would say it does not fit anywhere here.
Read Rand and see that there is no room for such mysticism.
Or read other posts on religion that have likely covered what you need.