Roland, you are exactly correct, it should be a place of discussion and debate, and done in the spirit of honest discourse and examination of your premises. Your data may be suspect, or from a suspect source, or not current, or may be spot on new learnings of value to others. The point is it should never have to "pass muster" with the few individuals who have appointed themselves the arbiter of all things and have a total inability to have a polite discussion without condemning the individual as a "non objectivist", "non scientific" dunderhead. Those are the people who have made it difficult in the Gulch to have a discussion.

Yes, That is why I came here and found that the majority are open minded.

Often while sharing important new information that happens to buck to ole theories of the past, we are often attacked as non objective charlatans...seems to me, to categorically dismiss new info, new ideas and new theories base on observational evidence is NOT being objective.
If that were anti Rand, anti Objective then John Gault would have never entertained the idea of a free energy device.

When confronted with that kind of anti objective diatribe it is not worth the effort to reply; it ruins the spirit of the post for the author and those open minded that would like to engage.
There is so much more to learn out there beyond the status quo and politically accepted that would change the way we think about all the garbage we were taught or told was true settled science, history or any other field of study.

Yes, I agree with you and Dino.
As Ronald Reagan said, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20percent traitor.

It's especially difficult trying to learn and being insulted or demeaned rather than educated. This place is not about being adversarial, but learning from each other.
Forgive how naive or idealistic I sound here, but this is the only place I have to express my thoughts. The real world certainly hasn't been accommodating for someone like me.

It would be nice if people would use facts and data and show where they get it from when they try to "tell us all how it really is". As I understand it, Objectivism is supposedly a "fact based" philosophy, and your position is based on premises established by data.

Exactly!

Ayn had an amazing mind. She very well explains many principals that I adhere to. She also understood The United States of America and the constitution was the best protector of the individual. With that said she had flaws like all individuals. I try to take the best ideas and leave the rest. Thanks for the advice DINO.

Thor-quixote here.

Can't help it. I didn't realize there were people here so narrow-minded that only the words Ayn wrote, and only in the order she wrote them actually exist, and all other words are drivel. No other ideas or actions can be consistent with "the word of Ayn".

I came here to avoid religious dogma while seeking fiscal and social freedom, but dogma must be like death and taxes.