Tell me, Mind, since Rand says one must be rational by choice, what guides that initial choice to be rational, since it can't be reason?

If I don't have enough knowledge about possible consequences of an action to measure options, what am I to do, stay in bed all day? Should I always wait until there is a clear logical path? Should I never take a risk? Should I always be safe and secure? How much of life will I experience that way? Is it really logical to be logical all the time? Isn't it like leaning on a crutch rather than using logic as a tool?

BTW, how much do you really know about logic anyhow? Isn't logic, to you, just another word for what you want to believe? If logic leads to something you don't want to believe, will you accept it? Or, will you dismiss it as some sort of mind game?

Can you set up a logical argument, premise by premise, and name the rule of inference used to reach the conclusion? Can you show where one of Nick Otani's arguments contains an obvious fallacy? Can you name the fallacy? Can you translate our regular spoken language into symbolic logic and apply truth table analysis to it? Have you read Quine? Do you agree with what he says about value statements?

Just for the record, I don't believe in only following my instincts and not doing tests or relying on pragmatic information when such information is available. It is misleading and dishonest to characterize me as someone who doesn't do this. I do use logic, as far as I can, when it is practical to do so. It is not always possible. It is a valuable tool, but it is not my god.

You won't understand this, will you? The more things get explained to you, the more you get it wrong. There is something wrong with your reasoning mechanism. Nick Otani can show you a circle, but you will see a square. You probably won't improve. That's why Nick doesn't want to talk to you anymore. He just has to follow you around to correct your lies and misstatements about him. He probably should have ignored you from the beginning.

bis bald,

Nick