Comment: whew... please read above

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: That's not what Rand said. (see in situ)

whew... please read above

whew... please read above concerning that nosense about extrapolation.

You didn't even get the strawman right. A strawman argument is where you characterize your opponents viewpoint with an exageration or misrepresentation of their view point and then refute it.

For example. A leftest using a "strawman" argument might say something like this:

"Crazy Libertarians think that there shouldn't be any laws so that mega-corporations can just rule everyone and the poor can go @#$% themselves. Thats why we need to elect democrates who will put a stop to these lunitics." (real life strawman that I have personally been hit with before)

Its a strawman, because thats not what libertarians actually believe. Not even close. Therfore basing the need to elect DemocRats in order to combat a view point that does not even exist is a false dychotomy formed through the use of a strawman argument. Get it? If A+B=C... then we must do D. Well the trouble is, B doesn't exist in this case... so that means C & D are bullshit.

When I say what I believe Ayn Rand was trying to say, and that I concur, im not making a strawman. Im stating my opinion of what she was trying to say, and agreeing with it if its true. Nowhere does Ayn Rand say that religeous people are incapable of being intelligent. She says that their reason is supressed by mystisim (Not exact words, but damn close)... I concur.