Just as you think Objectivism is THE philosophy.

did Rand take money for her books and movie? What of substance did SHE sell?

The heck shame isn't productive. Shame can, and does, lead to increased productivity. It's linked directly to one's self-image. And can be used as a goad, even by oneself, into being more productive, especially in one's own interst, than one might otherwise be.

If the culture in the Catholic church has been to hide and deflect.... how is it you know anything about such incidents?

Check your premises.

It was me. I can't repeat what I said, but I fake-quoted a self-proclaimed Objectivist justifying his abuse of a child by claiming he freely traded value for value. My intent was to demonstrate that just as Christianity has among it those who don't really practice, or don't really embrace or even understand it, the same is true of Objectivism.

No way did I sanction such behavior, nor would I.

My analogy, made in poor judgement in hindsight, was based on an episode of "Law and Order SVU" I had witness just a short while earlier, in which a pimp used that same kind of justification for the same (actually worse) behavior.

I'm tiptoeing around it this time. Sdesapio called me on the phone and disingenuously talked me into leaving the message up, to take the heat, then to post another message explaining myself as I explained myself on the phone to him. Instead of stepping in as he claimed he would do, he joined the mob and I ended up censured.
Whereas I could have more easily simply deleted the message had he requested I do so.

So you really do believe that people who embrace Objectivism become perfect paragons... talk about religious zealotry.
Yeah, no atheist / capitalist was *ever* a pedophile, and by embracing Objectivism you can overcome whatever sexual urges you're afflicted with.

The problem in the Catholic Church merely reflects the same problem in society as a whole. A predator can hide behind the philosophy of Objectivism just as readily as he can hide behind the philosophy of Catholicism.

Have you looked to the consequences of your premise?

Okay, there are a few billion Christians of various denominations, then there are about a billion Moslems, then lots of other religions.

So we all reject Objectivism because it has no commonality with our religions beliefs (a specious argument; check your premise).

How long do you think Objectivists will survive, and remain free? Trust me, in my hands even Galt will obey. What "evil" am I prevented from enacting, if I reject Objectivism completely? If there's no commonality, then I believe in slavery, and force as an argument. My first response will be a gun, not my last, and while you few may be able to outdraw me... remember those other billions.

And as the real world isn't AS, you won't be facing straw men, but very bright, dedicated, industrious bad men, who simply reject Objectivism completely.

Still want to play this holier-than-thou game?
Go ahead. piss-off a billion or so of us.

The Objectivist not willing to perform self-sacrifice will end either dead or a moocher.

Ask any entrepreneur about self-sacrifice.

That you think there's no common ground between Objectivism and "religion", lumping all religions together indicates a poor understanding of... pretty much everything.

That is the closed minded attitude that prevents the majority of values that the religious and straight line Objectivists share. You seem to believe that Ms. Rand had the only insight on the world worth evaluating. I have presented contrary arguments that, so far, have not been refuted as to the basis of Objectivism. They are not a religious, "mysticism" retort, they are based on logic and history.
There are many here that share say 90% of commonality with the views in AS, maybe more since atheism/anti-religion isn't a major theme of AS. And yes, on that portion, both religious and Objectivist share common ground.

It certainly was not you Robbie.

No he posed that rationalizing morality based on what the self wants is not practical. I gave you a point anyway.

I don't know why he was censured. I haven't paid any attention to those postings for quite some time. However, I'm not so dense that I don't recognize that there are suddenly numerous posts that are hidden. My point in bringing it up is that LS has been quite rude and purposefully antagonistic today - not merely a difference of opinion or different perspective, but purposefully rude and antagonistic. I don't care why H was censured. I do care that the same standard be applied to all posters.

As to your last statement, shame is often a productive emotion in that it causes inappropriate behavior to not be repeated. That would seem to be a good thing.

And your post does exactly what to advance any discussion? Just a waste of space, in my opinion.

He, who? Certainly wasn't me.

Ah so mocking your beliefs should be acceptable and even pointed ?

No, you don't get off that easily. You responded directly to me and brought up that bullshit. Don't hide behind H, I have long ago stopped reading those posts. The only one making "colorful" language was LS, as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to lump all those with whom you don't agree into one bucket then you are making an even greater error than those whom you seek to criticize.
As for shame, perhaps Objectivism would benefit from a bit of it. For the shameful way that some of you treat those of us that have different perspectives. I dare say that you receive a better and more accommodating hearing and respect than is given to us.

Just for the record he didn't rationalize the sanction of rape of a child. . His example was not in good taste since it was based on a t..V. show he had just seen.