Interesting points. My thoughts are:
"rape scene" Perhaps I misunderstood it (although I do not think so). To me it is the most powerful statements of love I have ever read.
"train scene" I agree with you and find it to be a wonderfully explicit statement connecting consequence with beliefs as well as actions.
And your Tolkien comments are spot on.

One should act in their interests, so the slanderer is correct here, but he is likely dropping the context of short vs. long term self interest. Any respectable Objectivist knows a long term interest is what one seeks to achieve.

Additionally the slanderer betrays his own evil slant. Notice that he gives the impression that murder, rape, and dismemberment is something that is commonly in one's self interest in a civil society. It would be interesting to me for him to explain why he thinks so.

Now the context of long term self-interest and in a civil society it would be very rare indeed, if at all, that rape, murder and dismemberment would be considered in one's long term self interest but with some imagination I can think of some instances where these activities may be appropriate.

For rape, consider the situation in the Fountainhead. Roark had the fantastic ability to understand people and their values, no matter how screwed up they were. He understood Dominique's twisted value system of seeking debasement. It technically is rape as Dominique called it, but how does one go about seeking to get raped when consensual would not make it rape? In full context it wasn't rape. So out of context it was rape. Either way it served Roark's and Dominique's long term self interests as they eventually got married after she failed to destroy Roark.

For murder, I can think if a situation where someone whispers in your ear (no one else can hear) that he's going to kill you and everyone you hold most dear. You noticed that people (and their loved ones) had disappeared who disagreed with this person, and it's beginning to make sense. There are additional grounds for you to take him seriously. So you kill this person later that night in an attempt to change your fate. In full context, and assuming all the other particulars line up, this is self defense and not murder, but out of context and also likely legally you've committed murder.

As far as dismemberment, I'm assuming the dismembered person will remain alive or it would just be a form of killing. My imagination is good but I cannot think of any concrete situation where this is appropriate. The person would have to be an irredeemable enemy who is trying to kill you. Killing this enemy must be warranted, but some longer range value would have to be served by dismemberment more than just killing him, such as to scare others who are part of the enemy group. These are the principles, but no concrete example comes to mind.

So I would, in an out of context sense, condone rape, murder, and dismemberment if it served a long term interest (without frustrating a longer term and greater interest) and the force exerted was either consensual (for case of rape) or in retaliation of force (or in retaliation of threat of force) exerted against you (for the cases of murder or dismemberment). This would certainly not be the norm in a civil society as the slanderer suggests.

"It makes no difference what is said about you so long as you are the one being talked about."
Why is this statement so often quoted? It seems to me that it always matters.

Oh, you mean different true believers like The People's Front of Judea, The Judean People's Front, The Judean Popular People's Front, the Campaign for a Free Galilee and don’t forget to mention The Popular Front of Judea (the last composed of a single old man).

That reminds me of a movie I once saw where this one dude holds up his hand and asks this other dude "how many fingers do you see?" It had a very sad ending. Perhaps Mr. Brennan received his education in room 101...

I usually just stop replying and let them rant in my absence as they see fit. Once I've had my fun further manipulation doesn't warrant the effort. They just fall off the bottom of my hierarchical list of values!

Timelord, I believe I may suffer the same character flaw you allude to in #1. That is, from time to time, I have fenced with fools just for the sport of it! Time consuming amusement until I get bored, then I try to get them to stomp off in a name-calling huff just to end the exchange. :-)

Poser: an intellectual or emotional moocher; identified by the anti-concepts they attach to themselves.

Never heard of Jason Brennan until now. I suspect his popularity was on the wan so taking a sniveling liars slap at Ayn Rand was planned to boost his ratings. Apparently it worked. Whatever.

When a person cannot counter the truth, he/she can either agree or lie. To agree would mean the dissolution of everything they believe and their entire philosophy crumbles into dust. To lie, scars that persons persona to the point of psychosis. I can pity them...but only very briefly, and not very much.

Some call it a Ponzi scheme, greatly benefiting many of those who continue to push the scheme, except Ponzi schemes are typically voluntary.

SS has always been a tax to pay for current receivers of the benefits. I matters not what you call it.

I never said it was not.

with the shanter

Robbie, AR knew very well that there are certain things that can be considered necessary evils that must be provided by government. She said that the military is necessary for defense and should be well trained, well equipped, well paid and voluntary with no expeditionary forces.

Sciolists!

You're' on your own on this one. Maybe one of the lassies will help. :)

I think maybe there are a few populist types of Objectivists. Attention getters with only smatterings of knowledge.

Well, OK. But now I can't find my damn tam.

Got a match?

Y'all ... I'm PMP!