are you parsing? Invention is invention. His position is untenable. His arguments are for property rights when they are in his favor and against them when they are not.

Now you have added content to your code. I like it.

yes. But that's ok, you just need to read some of her non-fiction. Here is a starting point from Galt's Speech:

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man."

I noticed that too but forgot to address it

Curious, but he's sure not talking about engineering here. What happened to him? I don't think West Point has an academic concentration in Jehovah's Witnessism.

minus 1. Objectivism is not a religion. You hang out on the site, but you have no interest in reading the most basic of her non-fiction.

I read that in a rand quote perhaps it was taken out of context?

He graduated from West Point in Engineering

Ok fair enough
But do you get what I'm saying?

Everything hasn't been as it is now, and won't stay this way. For the meaning of the principles of existence and identity see the Leonard Peikoff "OPAR" book referred to previously. The philosophical meaning of existence or the "universe" is much broader than the concept of the physical universe of earth, the planets, stars, etc.

Knowledge is intangible also. Can you measure how little you know? Have you ever experienced somebody expressing their intense love for you? Have you ever heard anybody explaining that freedom is a relative concept?

Come on, R! I am beginning to question you motives.

I know. I was addressing the way you described the criteria in terms of agreeing or disagreeing and what is inferred from it.

No one supports the notion that "just because Ayn Rand said it it must be automatically true".

His game is to bait you into taking his rambling sophistry seriously. The end game is to promote his mysticism. It seems he has an Associate Degree Class II in annoying people as a way of life, trained by the Jehovah's Witnesses. His deliberate harassment and goading trying to make people angry is the essence of "troll". He does not belong here.

Hello again, J,

I just noticed that in responding to you I neglected to respond about my moral code.

First, let me say that in my opinion religion, philosophy and ethics (moral code) are three different subject matters. To me, religion is based on faith and thus not properly rational. Philosophy is a system of concepts, rationally connected that include a recognition of limited knowledge. Ethics is an outgrowth of the fact that humans are social animals. The fundamentals of my ethics go back to virtues admired by ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians before them. Virtues are learned values that we rationally consider to be valuable to our own lives. My top values are: justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude, hope and charity. On top of this I believe that in the longest run, good wins over evil. In this, I define good as something the enhances the quality of and happiness in life for me and for all other humans who respect those virtues I listed. I doubt that Hitler would agree.

He confuses his repetitive, ignorant, belligerent harassment as an alleged intellectual challenge.

No, he's not pulling your leg. It's what he is. His ignorance of Ayn Rand's philosophy is challenged only by his militancy in misrepresenting it and in proselytizing for his religion.

The message of the Bible is not to be an insurance policy.

Yes, that is why I clarified with the over-arching "Rational Self Interest." My belief is that people have not grasped the meaning and intent in context, when the Objectivist uses the term selfishness.

Absolutely awesome in its simplicity!

Sorry, J,
I was responding to Robbie53024, who did answer to my question elsewhere that he is not an Objectivist. My thick fingers typed B instead of R.

I now understand that he thinks that Objectivism is a religion of worshipers of Ayn Rand. I certainly do not agree with that view.

Why? Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. Whatever particular aspects of Ringer you may like, philosophically he is a utilitarian and psychological hedonist.