Old Toad

Sorry, Brandon, I made a typo of "now" where I meant "not." I'm struggling with a different keyboard than I'm used to. I meant to write: "I do not know what can be meant by morality being "primarily focused" on man's choices." I was asking you what you meant by this. Using "primarily focused" suggests that morality additionally pertains to something other than man's choices. It was a bad typo because the consequence was that it changed the meaning of the sentence to something confusing, but I do not think I am immoral. Even without David Kelley's moral theory, I am able to distinguish between errors of fingers and errors of knowledge. Just kidding.

Brandon, I think it is a very good point that morality pertains to man's choices, not "primarily actions," but I do now know what can be meant by morality being "primarily focused" on man's choices. What else does morality address? Kelley saying that ideas are "primarily epistemological," is analogous to saying that physical entities are "primarily metaphysical." To push the analogy further, this suggests that we should "primarily" evaluate my truck for whether it exists and what it is made of, not for its purpose of transportation. Of course, my truck's purpose is "significant," but it might hurt somebody's feelings if my truck has a higher payload capacity.

Nothing to do with the thread? You previously stated the purpose of the thread is this: And yes, I have had elements of that example discussion with various people confused by David Kelley's toleration book. Apart from the specific example of a mother giving tequilla to her baby, I have personally had this part of the discussion with several people, including you at one time: It can take many hours of discussion to get "B" past just this point, if ever. I've personally had discussions like the other parts, too, including in regard to Kelley's "primarily epistemological" argument, his "suspending judgment" argument, and his concession that ideas can be morally "significant," but not "primarily" or "fundamentally," all driven by a desire to avoid being judgmental ("moralistic"). The shoe fits.

A: I think it is a bad idea for a mother to give tequilla to her baby. B. You can't judge an idea. A. I just did. B. Well, you shouldn't judge an idea. A. You just did. B. Well, I meant you shouldn't judge an idea as being primarily good or bad, only true or false. A. It's true: it is a bad idea for a mother to give tequilla to her baby. B. You can't be so sure. She might have a good reason for doing it. A. What good reason? B. Maybe the baby swallowed some rat poison and the tequilla would make the baby vomit. A. Would that be a good reason for her giving the baby the tequilla? B. Yes. A. But you said you shouldn't judge an idea. B. Well, now that I know about the rat poison, I have enough evidence to judge. A. What if the mother gave the baby both the rat poison and the tequilla, not knowing it would make the baby vomit? B. We don't have any reason to think that. You're just making up endless and preposterous scenarios. That's why we shouldn't judge an idea, only an action. Actual situations can be very complex and we can't judge until we have all the facts. A. How do you know when you have enough facts to judge an action? B. You suspend judgment until you have time to learn all the evidence that anyone might ever want to put forward, like in a trial. A. What if you do not have time for a full-blown trial? B. Then you suspend judgment indefinitely. You don't judge the idea. You primarily judge an action, and only after you have all the possible evidence. That's benevolence. A. So how can I use ideas as principles for guiding an action? B. That's when it is OK to secondarily judge an idea. A. How do I know when I can secondarily judge an idea as moral or immoral, good or evil? B. Only when you are sure your judgment of the idea will not hurt the feelings of anyone who might hold the idea by mistake. A. How do I know if a person is holding an idea by mistake? B. You have to wait until you have all the possible evidence. Like a trial. It's very complex. The chains of reasoning can be long. A mistake can happen at many places in the chain of reasoning. You give the benefit of the doubt. That's benevolence. A. So I cannot judge an idea for guiding action? B. Of course you can. But you should only judge an idea as being "evil" if everybody in the world already agrees it is evil so you don't hurt anyone's feelings. A. That's a really bad idea. Just for fun.

Hello Paul, Regarding the US Patent and Trademark Office, for an example of the office issuing regulations please see Post #3 on this thread. (I do not know anything about the BLM.)

No one on this thread wrote that the USPTO is a "regulatory agency," but it does issue "regulations." Your question is based on an equivocation on two different senses of the word "regulation." It is important to consult dictionaries and interpret which sense is intended from the context.

I agree, that is a rude name. Ohio is a suburb of Dallas. The North Texas Objectivist Society already covers it.

Ayn Rand explained: --Ayn Rand, The Objectivist—June 1966, The Question Of Scholarships (emphasis added). As noted by John McVey, this is a recurring topic. It is a good question, and I am very glad that Ayn Rand helped us with thinking through the principles involved.

In re-reading Diana’s original post and the responses, I think that we may be using the word “regulation” in different senses. In a first sense, the word “regulation” means “1: the act of regulating : the state of being regulated,” where “regulate” is meant in the sense of: “1 a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>.” Merriam-Webster Online. 20 March 2009
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate In a second sense, the word “regulation means: “2 a: an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure <safety regulations> b: a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law.” Merriam-Webster Online. 20 March 2009
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulation The distinction is important. I think Aqualyst was understanding Diana’s usage of the word “regulation” in the first sense. David Odden, Grames, and I were understanding Diana’s usage of the word “regulation” in the second sense (in contrast to “law” or “statute,” that is, an act passed by the legislative branch). I think Miovas’s questions were based on not being sure which sense was intended. In the first sense of the word, “regulation” is immoral. In the second sense of the word, “regulation” is merely a political distinction as to which branch promulgates a rule, which can either be a “law” or “have the force of law.” In the first sense, “regulation” makes a big difference to the man on the street. In the second, it makes little difference to him. Like Aqualyst, what I suggest is that the problem of “regulation” is in the first sense, and like Grames, not so much in the second. I think it is a fallacy to argue: “Most regulations today are bad. This is because there is insufficient political protection against bad regulations. Therefore, we should get rid of all regulations.” Such reasoning would suggest we should get rid of all laws, too. (This is hyperbole from Diana's question, of course, just for dramatic effect.) The solution is political, and ultimately philosophical, of course. But getting rid of all regulations (and all laws) to get rid of bad ones is not the solution.

I think your question stems from the mixed political system of the United States, not from the fact that "regulations" are promulgated by the executive (or judicial) branch of a government. It is a proper function of the executive branch of a government to promulgate objective regulations according to objective law. As you noted, it is important to recognize that the power to make regulations under a law is provided for by the particular law and limited by the law, not independent of the law. The regulations should properly deal with the specific procedures to follow under the substance of a law or to determine issues requiring special scientific expertise under the broader direction of a law. In contrast, it is impossible to expect the executive branch to promulgate objective regulations under the direction of a non-objective law. By definition, a non-objective law cannot be objectively executed. Perhaps a trivial example of the proper use of regulations promulgated by the executive branch will help illustrate the point regarding establishing objective procedures. The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Section 8, Clause 8. According to this Constitutional authority, Congress enacts laws (part of the “United States Code”) for the protection of copyrights, including, for example, a provision for a “Copyright Office”: Title 17, United States Code § 701. The Copyright Office: General responsibilities and organization Pursuant to this authority of law, the executive branch promulgates regulations, including this example: Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 201.1 Communications with the Copyright Office. It should be unnecessary to require an Act of Congress to change the mailing address of the Copyright Office. Here is another trivial example regarding specific procedures from Title 37 of the "Code of Federal Regulations" promulgated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding "Language, paper, writing, margins, compact disc specifications" for use in communicating with the Patent Office: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/....htm#cfr37s1.52 The regulations are promulgated because people have tried to file unreadable materials with the Patent Office, and this explains what format, not content, is required to make an application. The promulgations of regulations regarding such granular issues of procedure are entirely proper to delegate to the executive branch. Such regulations are one of the ways that the executive branch may inform the public of how it will conduct business under a law. Such procedural details may be the subject of some discretion, of course, and may be the subject of much discussion and even disagreement, but making such executive decisions under objective laws is unlikely to violate any substantive individual rights. (Of course, I do not mean to imply that the entirety of modern U.S. copyright or patent law is objective, these are only examples of objective regulations and their relation to objective law.) Another area that I think could properly be delegated to the executive branch would be under immigration laws against those carrying a serious communicable disease (although I am not familiar with this area of the law). For example, perhaps a law could establish that persons exhibiting signs of such a disease should not be allowed into the country, but delegate the exact listing of the diseases and health standards for immigration to the executive branch having an office employing medical professionals. See, for example, Title 42: Public Health, Part 34—Medical Examination of Aliens http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....17&idno=42 It also gives the executive branch the power to act quickly in response to a new health threat, where legislative action is inherently much slower. I do not agree with all of 42 Code of Federal Regulations, but it gives us a concrete example of Congress delegating to the executive branch (and its specialists) regarding technical issues. In contrast, if a law is non-objective, such as a tax law or a law for the protection of the environment without regard to individual rights, the regulations that the executive branch will promulgate under the non-objective law will likely be non-objective as well. Both the non-objective law and the non-objective regulations promulgated under the non-objective law will likely be subject to all the evils that you mention.

Hello y, In a world devoid of objective, well-accepted definitions, I agree, anything can be "fraud," even honoring a contract and grapefruit. Regarding "credit created out of thin air," you reveal that you are unaware that accounting takes into account both sides of any transaction. You only count one side of each transaction, and then cry "fraud," "inflation," etc. When you "deposit" $100 into a bank account, the bank makes TWO balanced accounting entries: (1) That it owes you $100; (2) that it has $100 in cash assets. When the bank loans $90 of that money to another person, it makes TWO balanced accounting entries: (1) It subtracts the loan amount of $90 from its cash; (2) it adds that it is owed $90 by the other person as an asset. The bank then has this accounting result: a) $100 in "liability" to you, its depositor; and b ) $100 in "assets." Of course, the assets are: (i) $90 in money it is owed by the other person, which is expected to be paid back; and (ii) the $10 is cash reserve against demands for withdrawal. The net change of "money supply" in every one of such transactions is always ZERO. No fiat money is created. No inflation is created. The illustration of "Mulligan's Bank" in Atlas Shrugged didn't have those evils, either. Banking (i.e., fractional reserve banking) worked before with gold standard currency and it would work again with gold standard currency. The "safety" of the deposits and the "risk" of the loans must be managed, of course. The bank charges interest for the risk. The interest should cover the risk, actual losses, operating expenses, and profit. The bank should take much less risk with depositor's funds than it's manager might take with his own funds, because the depositors expectations of repayment are high--but only a child would expect 100% safety for this. In exchange for this risk, the depositor receives cheap and relatively safe "demand deposit account" services and other related transactional services (check cashing, wire transfer, etc., the like of which other non-bank entities may offer, too, such as "Western Union" or "Cash America" and the Post Office do for a fee or percentage), and for larger accounts, even interest, too. The bank is usually paid back the $90 loans, plus interest, and keeps the difference, after loan losses and operating expenses, as profit. This is where balanced accounting entries for income and expenses come in. The bank aggregates the depositors' accounts to spread the risk and increase overall safety. The bank aggregates the loans to others to spread the risk and increase overall chances of repayment. On balance, and in general, it is managed to be very safe. On top of this, in a free society, the banks could buy insurance or come together and make mutual insurance, too. That would cut profits, but help attract depositors. If a depositor desires higher safety than the bank normally offers on "demand deposit accounts," he should keep his money in a "safety-deposit box." This generates no income, is still subject to risk of bank heist, and has a maintenance fee that is probably not covered or subsidized by the bank's lending operations, except perhaps as a courtesy or incentive for sufficiently-large depositors in the "demand deposit accounts" and CDs, etc. Preferably, a fractional-reserve bank is managed by someone like “Midas Mulligan.” If you don't want to "risk" the relative "safety" and convenience of a bank "demand deposit account," use a safety deposit box or your mattress. No one is stopping you, and that does not cause fiat currency or inflation, either. The cry for the safety of "full-reserve banking" is the cry for the simplicity of the ox-cart instead of the complexity of the passenger jet. But which is really "safer"? I become increasingly convinced that this discussion is at an impasse.

Hello y, I can see we are all probably at an impasse, but I have a few parting comments, which are constructively intended. The well-accepted, non-legalistic "modern English" definition of "fraud" is: 1 a: deceit , trickery ; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick 2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor ; also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be synonyms see deception, imposture http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud To say that the "fraud is not in the deceit" means it is not "fraud" at all. There cannot be a "breach of contract," either, where all the parties act according to their mutual understandings of the contract -- even if you think the words “should” mean something else. If you don't like the contract terms, as everyone understands them–including you–don't put your money in a "demand deposit account" in a "bank." As Ayn Rand pointed out, we all know what the bank does with the money – it loans most of it out. A fraction is held in “reserve” to meet expectations for usual demand withdrawals. By analogy, it seems you would complain that it must be a fraud and breach of contract to sell "grapefruit" because there is no "grape" in the fruit, even though everybody knows this. This is a patently false statement and represents a massive confusion and misunderstanding regarding "fractional reserve banking." If this misunderstanding (by at least one of us) is not corrected, it will make any further discussion very difficult, if not impossible. A "bank," as such, does not loan out more money that it has in equity and deposits. If it does, it is "bankrupt" or "insolvent." (The "Federal Reserve Bank" -- as a quasi governmental entity -- might be able to "print" or "create" fiat money -- I do not know for sure -- but that is not the function of a "bank," but an immoral governmental act.) Because it illustrates the widely-accepted understanding of a "bank" and "banking" (i.e., "fractional reserve banking"), that it is not fraudulent, a breach of contract, the cause of fiat money or inflation, or immoral. I would be glad to continue this discussion if we can use well-accepted definitions. If you don't like the well-accepted definitions of certain words, I suggest that you use other words that do express your meaning according to the well-accepted definitions.

Hello John, It did not occur to me that Old English was still used in Australia. My parents tell me that I used to speak some Old English with the grandparents when we visited the Old World. Heck, I hear Grandpappy once took me to see the “Very First Deposit Bank of England.” That was before the Frogs (now known as the “French”) invaded in 1066, though. The Battle of Hastings was a fiasco, I tell you. Then the damn Frogs imposed new government banking regulations, known as Frog Reserve Banking (“FRB”). FRB is the banking system I grew up with. Since I have long since forgotten Old English, I guess we have a language barrier.

Classic Encyclopedia Based on the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica published in 1911 (This is a rather lengthy article discussing the history of banks and banking over prior centuries.) http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Banks_and_banking I trust this historical example from 100 years ago, including discussion of the nature of "banking" from a source that is now nearly 200 years old, is sufficiently historical. The word "bank" is not "an epistemological corruption" or a "modern equivocation on the meaning of the word 'deposit' or "modern definitions - based on non-essentials - that have arisen well after the corruption took place (and subsequently enshrined in bank licencing law)." You may quarrel with the need of a "bank," but, respectfully, I think you need to check your understanding of the words "bank" and "banking" and "deposit accounts" so we can communicate better.

Sorry, John, but that is not a well-accepted defintion of "bank," but rather of a brokerage house or some other kind of investment firm. A "bank" (in this sense) is characterized as follows: "a financial institution that accepts deposits and channels the money into lending activities." See, e.g.: http://www.bankingterms.biz/define-bank/ http://www.glossary.com/dictionary.php?q=Bank http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depositor...ial+institution http://www.answers.com/topic/depository-fi...banking-company From Ayn Rand, in her usual strong language: --Ayn Rand, The Journals of Ayn Rand, 10 - Communism And HUAC (emphasis added). Also, from Atlas Shrugged: (Emphasis added.) The "Mulligan Bank" in Atlas Shrugged, as a "bank," loaned depositors' funds.

Virtually all bank-deposit-account services have always been and always will be based on fractional reserve banking. It is probably the essential and defining function of "banking." Without it, there is no "bank." People used banks before the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, regulations, and government bailouts. Anyone can avoid keeping his money a bank deposit account by using a safety deposit box or his mattress. The problem with the current banking system is the government interferences you mention, not fractional reserve banking. The "Mulligan Bank" in Atlas Shrugged was a fractional reserve bank.

If the depositors are aware of the practice, it is not fraud. Infantile expectation is not the standard for fraud, either. Read the fine print. Punk said it best:

We have just created the "Oklahoma Objectivist Society" (aka "OKOS"), centered in the Oklahoma City area. Karen is our Assistant Organizer for OKOS. Karen will manage just about everything local for us in OKOS. FYI, the lead Organizer ("Old Toad") is also the lead Organizer for the North Texas Objectivist Society in Dallas, TX. As detailed under our bylaws, our society welcomes the membership of anyone who admires Ayn Rand’s works (e.g., Atlas Shrugged) and is constructively interested in Objectivism. Non-Objectivists are welcome. A member is welcome to bring friends, family, and children as guests to appropriate events. Mingle and enjoy the friendly fellowship at our events. Of course, we also enjoy philosophical discussions, too! Please read our "About Us" page for more information, including about our interest, our purpose, who we welcome, what we offer, why we do it, and our participation terms. Especially if you are in the Oklahoma area or if you might be interested to drive out there to meet more people interested in Ayn Rand's works, please join OKOS as a member so you can learn of its local events and offerings. We hope you will participate in the Oklahoma Objectivist Society! For information about the OKOS and to sign up, please visit: http://www.meetup.com/Oklahoma-Objectivist-Society/about/

I think this is a fallacy of ambiguity, and more particularly, it is classified as a "distributive fallacy" regarding composition. "The argument moves from a claim about the distributive sense of a class (i.e. each of the parts taken separately) to a claim about the collective sense of a class (i.e. the class taken as a whole)." Cite: Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page http://www.cuyamaca.edu/brucethompson/Fall...composition.asp

The North Texas Objectivist Society is spawning! Prompted by Mark, one of our NTOS members living in East Texas, we have just created the "East Texas Objectivist Society" aka "ETOS"! I think we are sufficiently well established in North Texas that we should try to expand our group and format to surrounding areas. Mark has volunteered to be our local Assistant Organizer for ETOS. Mark will manage just about everything for us in ETOS. This should be good for all of us. It will be a way for some of our membership to communicate on a more regional basis regarding events in East Texas vs. North Texas areas. Sometimes we may organize joint events. It will be a way for us coordinate certain major events likely to be of interest to both groups, like invited Objectivist speakers. I and my family plan to personally visit ETOS events on occasion, too! And we hope to see ETOS members occasionally visit us in the North Texas area, especially for our speaker events. ETOS has the same organizational structure as NTOS. As detailed under each local group's bylaws, our society welcomes the membership of anyone who admires Ayn Rand’s works and is constructively interested in Objectivism. Non-Objectivists are welcome. A member is welcome to bring friends, family, and children as guests to appropriate events. Especially if you are in the East Texas area or if you might be interested to drive out there to meet more people interested in Ayn Rand's works, please join ETOS as a member so you can learn of its local events and offerings. As always, please read our "About Us" pages (which are substantially similar except for location details) for more information, including about our interest, our purpose, who we welcome, what we offer, why we do it, and our participation terms. If you are in the East Texas area, we hope you will participate in the East Texas Objectivist Society! For information about the ETOS and to sign up, please visit: http://www.meetup.com/East-Texas-Objectivist-Society/about/ If you have any questions about our new ETOS, please feel free to contact Mark via Meetup: http://www.meetup.com/East-Texas-Objectivi...embers/6487973/

Ayn Rand on American Culture Dr. John David Lewis For the North Texas Objectivist Society Synopsis After the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, Ayn Rand turned full time to writing non-fiction. She most enjoyed writing “middle level” articles—articles about a particular person, issue or event, considered in terms of the philosophical meaning. These timeless essays remain relevant to the challenges facing Americans today. How can a reader best approach this wide-ranging, philosophically challenging material? What issues are common to the various essays, and how does her non-fiction relate to her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged? This talk is based on material to appear in a forthcoming volume Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought, edited by Allan Gotthelf and Greg Salmieri. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About the Speaker Dr. John Lewis is visiting associate professor of political science, Duke University. He has been senior research scholar in history and classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University. Formerly associate professor of history at Ashland University, he holds a PhD in Classics from the University of Cambridge, a BA in History from the University of Rhode Island, and an Anthem Fellowship for Objectivist Scholarship. He has taught at the University of London, and was a visiting scholar at Rice University and the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. Dr. Lewis has published in journals such as Social Philosophy and Policy, Polis, The Journal of Business Ethics and Dike;. He is consulting editor of The Objective Standard, and has written for Capitalism Magazine. He is the author of Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens (Duckworth, 2006), and Early Greek Lawgivers (Bristol Classical Press, 2007). His book Nothing Less Than Victory: The Will to Fight and the Lessons of History, is in press with Princeton University Press. Dr. Lewis's website is: www.classicalideals.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About the North Texas Objectivist Society http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2009 Program* 7:00 pm - 7:30 pm - Arrival, signing-in, and seating 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm - Lecture followed by question period * Refreshments only. Business casual. * The speaker reserves all copyright. Note-taking is permitted, but by participation each audience member agrees not to publish any lecture notes. * NTOS requests everyone to avoid Rand/Branden, Peikoff/Kelley, and ARI/TAS issues at our speaker and related events, which topics may be more appropriately and freely discussed at other NTOS events. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Admission Pricing $35/person or $15/new guest* *A “new guest” means a person who: a] is accompanied as a personal guest of a member; b] has never been a member; and c] has never been to an NTOS speaker event. The member is expected to be the link between his guests and the other members of NTOS. For example, the member should help introduce his guests to Objectivism and to our other members. We have very friendly and welcoming events. As always, all participation is expected to be respectful of a speaker and our society. For more information about NTOS, please see our “About” page at http://AynRand.Meetup.com/71 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Location North Dallas area, TBD. The location information will be sent via e-mail to those who register. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advance Registration Requested We request advance registration for limited seating, to build membership in NTOS, for our security, and to avoid the management of payments at the door. Please register as follows: (1) Visit our event listing at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/calendar/list/ .. a] RSVP for yourself plus any welcome guests you may wish to bring. .. b] Pay the applicable event fee(s) via the payment link provided. (2) "Contact Organizer" via http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ to send an e-mail with the following information: .. a] Your name; .. b] The name(s) of your guest(s), if any; .. c] Your e-mail address; .. d] Your mailing address; .. e] Your telephone number(s). We will not give out, publish, or sell your contact information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Event If you attend this lecture to NTOS, please also join us and the speaker for: Social Reception with Dr. John Lewis @ "the Ranch" Saturday, April 18, 2009, 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm See our NTOS calendar for the details regarding the separate social reception! http://www.meetup.com/Objectivist-Society/calendar/9659094/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions If you have any questions, need any special accommodation, or have any difficulties regarding making online registration, please contact us via the "Contact Organizer" feature on Meetup at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ We hope you can join us! "Old Toad", Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society .

You misquote the opening poster. I agree, words have meaning; you should read them and quote them more carefully. The opening post did not ask you to “jump with him” or to ignore what he wrote. Your response to the man’s despair was vicious because you are presumed to have volitional control over your own words, to know that man’s life is the standard of value, and to know that if another person is in despair, one should not encourage, suggest, or even “merely point” him to suicide. No person of good will would do such a thing.

The plain language of the title of his post and the substance of his posts express depression, not suicide. Perhaps the man is a fraud and looking for pity. Pity was not offered here. Even if he suggested suicide, you were not "merely stepping out of the way." You were not in his way. You went out of your way to push.

I think this is an awful thing to write. We rarely know very much about another person who makes a post, but clearly the opening post was made by someone who is interested in Objectivism but in some despair. You may not agree that the person has good reason for his despair, but this is a destructive response. Perhaps you missed this: I do not know very much about Asperger’s syndrome, but it appears to be associated with depression and anxiety, which may be understandable if the person has difficulty in socializing. I think we should value a person’s expression of constructive interest in Objectivism and if he is despairing of the struggle to succeed in life offer, we can offer some encouragement. If you do not, that is fine, but I cannot see any value in contemptuously suggesting such a person to suicide. The heroic character of Dagny in Atlas Shrugged did not express contempt for Cheryl and certainly did not suggest any such thing to Cheryl. On the contrary, sensing the danger, Dagny offered help.

JMartins, that is a helpful link. Thank you.