sjw

Sincerity is impossible to anyone primarily interested in Objectivism. "Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend." -- Aristotle

Yeah, it would be the guy who has no thoughts of his own but can only quote Ayn Rand who'd pull the "critic is a troll" gambit. Pathetic.

That paragraph isn't relevant unless you're trying for a cheap insult. Was that what you were aiming at? Are there Objectivist forums out there that have competent students of Objectivism, or is this the best there is? You guys are pretty awful, frankly. I'd ask the official scholars these questions but they only engage with critics when doing so translates to cash in their pocket, which is somewhat ironic given the subject here. (I fully expect the irony to go completely over your heads.)

Sigh... You claimed I got a reasoned explanation but I ignored it, I was simply asking for what particular argument here you were referring to, there have been many posts. It's not my intention to ignore reasoned arguments. More likely you thought something was a great argument while in reality it sucked. But who knows when you don't specify what you're referring to.

Link? I don't take your other remarks seriously, you're just projecting. Put up or shut up.

At the start of this thread I think I got some decent answers. None of these later posts are answering the original question and they are misconstruing the intent. Just because I disagree that the argument for a given conclusion is full of holes, doesn't mean I disagree with the conclusion. Is the hole a hole or not? That's the question. Attacking me or telling me how wonderful the conclusion is doesn't speak to the holes. If Ayn Rand had claimed to have solved a great math problem, but where she got the right answer but made mistakes in how she computed it, should that matter? (This oversimplifies, since many of her conclusions are also wrong, but that's beside the point.)

OK, but that's just elementary philosophy, it doesn't need to be stated here.

To which I replied "They have nukes." Of course we should care about widespread irrationality. Perhaps you want to rephrase this?

This is a tangent related to your claim that "Rand didn't care if most people were consistently rational or not" and "What the majority do is beside the point", it's not relevant to the main point. The main point is more in the area of whether Rand thought rationality was a virtue. I.e. *consistently* being rational. She most certainly did think that, but you seem to dispute it. Go read OPAR if you disagree.

Why do you ask?

I believe you're completely sincere when you say you can only comprehend my questions as being trolling or pedantic. But that's no excuse for engaging in that which you condemn, is it? Is aping what you hate typical behavior for you in real life too, or do you only do it when masked by that pseudonym?

It's not an argument, and I'm not incredulous. Trolls and idiots are a dime a dozen, there's nothing surprising about you.

Don't be ridiculous. They have nukes.

Surely you jest? Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?

I don't think you understand Objectivism... rationality is the primary virtue in Objectivism, and yes, it means being consistent.