re: #731 Dan G.

Right. Her tone belied her ignorance (willful or not) of the subject. I could have made that first response more mellow, granted. But are you saying that excuses her fallacy laden, fact dodging, behavior? She didn’t defend herself in reply, she dodged the issue and attacked with fallacies and feigned condescension.

I think she clarified her position for you quite well:

Dan, you are clearly taking the hyperbolic nature of my initial characterisation and freaking out. You’re wrong about Rand. You’re wrong to say I claimed her ethics is based on theft. It’s based, in part, on semi-Neitzschean ideas about the strong taking and getting and producing what they want and need, and the weak failing to do so. That is what I meant when I characterised it that way.

And for the record, on the atheist forum I used to frequent , it was not uncommon to run into self professed Randians who professed what seemed to me to be a form of anarchy in which the sort of thing iceweasel alluded to was to some degree approached. IIRC the term “ethical egotism” used to come up a lot on those discussions. So I can certainly see where iceweasel was coming from.

But unfortunately rather than seek clarification in a civil manner you just started chucking out stupid accusations of ‘liar’. You need to seriously rethink your approach to these sort of discussions.