Well, this isn't really the place for debunking ridiculous Randian notions of an "objective morality" that just happens to agree with the ideology of the ruling class.

Nor is it the place to unnecessarily presume political opinions that are widely disagreed with, which is why I made my comment in the first place.

Yeah, the ideology you've bought into is objective morality, and anything else is just questionable political opinions—gotcha. Good thing you found Leonard Peikoff; now you know the firm and irrefutable truths pertaining to the human condition and society.

Reading your profile, it's clear that you claim to be able to correctly derive your stance against human rights from nothing but "sense perception of reality" combined with Objectivist logic. That being the case, you obviously aren't just trying to add some diversity to the conversation—you know you possess the final truth.

If somebody wants to bring up and talk about rights, I'll certainly add my two cents. And a lot of discussions were spawned off of my comment, with people talking about both sides, so I'd say I've used the site correctly and added value. And I've enjoyed the discussion. So what exactly is your problem?

On the other hand, you are using sarcastic language and just "talking down" to me. Basically, light bullying. I'm referring to your last two comments.

> Reading your profile, it's clear that you claim to be able to correctly derive your stance against human rights from nothing but "sense perception of reality" combined with Objectivist logic.

How else would someone come up with any stance at all on rights (regardles of whether it agrees with mine)? I mean, you have to look at reality and you have to use logic. So I'm not sure what your point here is.

(Actually, I do know your point, it's to try to just find some way to put me down and make me look small.)