|
|
|
|
|
|
by dk
5910 days ago
|
|
|
The article argues every step for a reality-based ethics. And the author has one in mind, not surprisingly. Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions. Responding in the form "I agree that..." or "I disagree that..." could start an interesting discussion. |
|
|
Of course; I just wish that the writer had mentioned this at the top so I could have given the arguments context. I've read Rand and personally don't find her useful so all that reading led to... nothing insightful (for me anyway) :)
There was a lot of use of "The fact is" - this is just bad rhetoric. I didn't feel these sections were well enough argued/presented to constitute a solution to the questions posed earlier in the piece.
Ultimately I just felt the conclusion was poor - the article posed a lot of questions and never really addressed them, except to say read Ayn Rand.