First, obviously one can suggest a book that they think "demolishes" Ayn Rand's (or any other author's) views, regardless of whether they think that the person they suggest it to supports Rand or not.
But let's get into the implication and see, if it was true, whether it could be justified.
So, you protest on the implication you think the parent makes that "by attacking the use of a quote to ridicule those who have read Ayn Rand and attempt to present her ideas, I am myself promoting Ayn Rand's ideas".
And you name various fallacies to show why this is not necessarily true.
Well, it might not be a logical conclusion in the formal logic sense, but it's a very probable conclusion given all we know about human behavior, how conversations go, etc -- not to mention your writing style.
In life, as opposed to pure math, we often need, and do, judgement calls based on incomplete data, calls that don't actually follow with 100% logical certainty, but are nevertheless quite clear from the general context. Sure, we might be wrong in some cases. That's still a net positive, if we are correct in most cases. 100% correctness is for the inhabitants of Vulcan.
I don't know what the parent consider you -- he might consider you a fellow anti-Rand person for all I know, and suggested the book because you'd appreciate it being such.
But to my eyes you totally look like a pro-Rand person -- not just because you jumped to criticize the quote (yes, it appealed to emotion -- but people tend to ignore that when it concerns emotions and quotes they are in favor of), but also because of the overall tone of the responses and the fallacitis ("oh, I discovered this blunt tool on the internet, let's hammer every conversation into a inquiry for objective truth").
Yes, one can. My complaint here was that it was not relevant to what was being discussed. It's similar to a discussion on the latest Postgres being hijacked by yet another languages war.
> In life, as opposed to pure math, we often need, and do, judgement calls based on incomplete data, calls that don't actually follow with 100% logical certainty, but are nevertheless quite clear from the general context
Agreed.
> 100% correctness is for the inhabitants of Vulcan.
Disagree. You make the best decision based on the incomplete data available, and your own value system. That decision is by definition "correct". There are always costs to any path.
> to my eyes you totally look like a pro-Rand person
This is irrelevant to the discussion, except as an ad hominem. Ad hominems are justified in a very small number of cases where directly relevant to the situation. Learning that an investor has a history of playing hardball with his portfolio companies is relevant when examining his term sheet. Dismissing entire arguments due to them not being branded right is not.
I am not trying to defend myself from belonging to a certain tribe or not, as it would not add to the discussion and would probably detract from it by taking it further down the road to the Trump/Clinton debates' tone. I am attempting to clarify arguments, values, premises and ideas for myself and others. You may assume it is propaganda: my own ideas, that I am trying to convince others of.
> because of the overall tone of the responses
What is the appropriate tone for responding? I believe I was sufficiently polite and civil, and fair in presenting my position. Please help me improve my communication style by pointing out how this was not the case.
> "oh, I discovered this blunt tool on the internet, let's hammer every conversation into a inquiry for objective truth"
It predates the internet. Technically I was first exposed to these ideas in Critical Thinking classes in high school, although self-study of logic and various books and life experience helped pad out most of it.
I would just add that the complexity of objective truth, and its lack of total discoverability (due to personal subjectivity, etc.) does not imply its inexistence, or the inadvisability of seeking to get closer to it. My philosophy chops are not developed enough to discuss this one much further though.
