Theory of Lulie Tanett

[Elliot Temple]

Lulie Tanett (LT) spent many years acknowledging she didn't know enough about TCS, Rand, Popper, FI, etc. She thought she should learn more, rather than claiming to already know it. She planned to.

But, year after year, she didn't. And unless she learned stuff, the FI community was never going to change its position: next step, she should learn things. FI has objective standards for expertise.

So, failing to earn it, she left FI to seek a *path to the unearned*. Now she pretends to be wise (but still hasn't learned much). She engages with communities that don't have objective standards for knowledge, and instead judge people by social status kinda of crap.

I think this is an important insight about giving up on achievement and then seeking a path to the (intellectual) unearned (FI is like the opposite of that path, but social games are a path to get an intellectual reputation without earning it intellectually (you do earn it with social behavior instead)).

Note: Something similar (want unearned, look for easier path) could happen with other people here who have been pretty stuck for years.



Some reasons for this theory:

- since she clearly quit FI a few years ago, she has started trying to present herself as a competent, knowledgeable thinker. that's her twitter persona, her CR FB group persona, etc. (not entirely, e.g. she also presents herself as learning some Less Wrong stuff. but with them she also writes fancy things, tries to share impressive thoughts)

- her shift from presenting herself more as a learner, to more as an expert, was what i just recognized and put together with wanting the unearned. that's the main inspiration for this post

- she now seems to particularly hate Rand (who criticized people for wanting the unearned, and who is not respectable in the eyes of people she wants to impress like most Popperians)

- it makes sense that if someone failed to earn something for years and years (for whatever reason), they'd eventually want some easier path

- LT became increasingly dishonest over the years, which would enable rationalizing this sort of strategy

- see my post "Exercise: Analyzing Lies" (sept 27, 2017) and the many replies and topics that branched from it

- LT associates with other fakers like Matjaz

- here's an example of LT showing off recently on CR FB group. (it's the first thing i found there by her, starting with the newest, after writing most of this post). the tone is she's an expert giving a lecture: https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/permalink/10156431717264904/?comment_id=10156445653429904&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D (i don't know if that link will take you to the right comment. it's the one that opens with "If you can argue through words but have a disconnect with your visuals and emotions, you have errors in your thinking (just as you'd have errors if you can only communicate via visuals and emotions and not via argument).")

- second place i found LT commenting was here (then i stopped looking):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/permalink/10156356906109904/

i'm gonna quote some of this stuff:

Frank Lovell:

>> Popper saved me from Rand!
>>
>> Back in the early '80s I read where Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden wrote that "Karl Popper is some sort of crackpot,"

lol-sigh at attributing one quote to two people. they didn't co-author stuff. they both have writing in a few of the same books, but the articles are attributed to one individual.

i doubt either of them wrote that quote, though i wouldn't really care if Branden had. i'm unaware of ANY direct comment about Popper by Rand. would be very interested if you know of one.


>> which compelled me to look up something about Popper. So I read his OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE,...
>>
>> ...and then I promptly (faster than Atlas!) shrugged-off Rand's "Objectivist Epistemology" in favor of Popper's astonishingly rational epistemology and proceeded to read everything by Popper that I could find (still doing that, and reading other critical rationalists too).
>>
>> (I once possessed and had read all of Rand's books published before 1982, but the only one I've kept is her "The Virtue of Selfishness" -- tossed all the other of her books and essays decades ago.)

bastard. anyway, LT replies:

> I started going through The Virtue of Selfishness with a critical eye after making a similar transition. My impression so far is that even her morality is tainted by her bad epistemology. (I think she has some insights about some common irrationalities or bad patterns people can get into, but her own solutions leave something to be desired.)
>
> I enjoy her fiction, though.


What a fence-straddling liar (and what weak praise for Rand). LT was attacking Rand on twitter a couple days ago (and not for the first time):

https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1014318909472768001

> ME: "I was reading an article* on the difference between being critical and being judgemental."
>
> FRIEND: "Hey, what if instead of critical rationalism, we had 'judgemental rationalism'?"
>
> ME: "You mean — Randian rationalism?"

That's an open attack. The motivation for this attack is not enjoying Rand's fiction, nor is it disagreeing with Rand about induction. LT intentionally misrepresented her views in the CR FB discussion.

BTW, I believe LT is aware that "Randian" is a disrespectful, unwanted synonym for "Objectivist". It's a petty attack to use the term. (Rand didn't want that to be the term. No one who respects Rand uses the term "Randian" except out of ignorance. If you look at Oist writing, you see the term "Objectivist" all the time in preference to Randian, as against Popperian writing which uses either CRist or Popperian without a clear preference.)

In a separate FB comment (same link as before), LT writes:

> "Ah you think Popper is your ally? You merely adopted CR. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see justificationism until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!"
>
> (Actually I'm sure I picked up some justificationist errors from culture, despite growing up around CR. The CR bubble isn't that big.)


gross! super bragging about how CR she is. also false. (she did grow up around CR, but chose not to learn much of it; she certainly isn't some kinda especially pure, non-justificationist Popperian)

clear example of trying to get unearned rewards like reputation.


Elliot Temple
www.elliottemple.com

[anonymous FI]

Using "Randian" is like using "falsificationism" to refer to Popper's
epistemology. That's not what Popper named it, and he complained in
print, and people who know much about Popper use other terms (Critical
Rationalism or Popperian epistemology). "falsificationism" is
misleading, a bad term, and contrary to Popper's wishes. Consequently,
using the term is highly correlated with being ignorant about CR and
unfriendly to Popper. Just like using "Randian" highly correlates with
ignorance of Oism and unfriendliness to Oism.

[Kate Sams]

On Jul 9, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/permalink/10156356906109904/

>
> anyway, LT replies:
>
>> I started going through The Virtue of Selfishness with a critical eye after making a similar transition. My impression so far is that even her morality is tainted by her bad epistemology. (I think she has some insights about some common irrationalities or bad patterns people can get into, but her own solutions leave something to be desired.)

Why does LT think that Rand’s epistemology taints her morality? Like in what ways do Rand's ideas about induction and justification show up in her writing about morality?

Even if LT's ideas on this are mistaken, what do you think she sees? Any guess on what her explanation would be?

[anonymous FI]

On Jul 10, 2018, at 4:49 AM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas

<fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us
> [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/permalink/10156356906109904/
>>
>> anyway, LT replies:
>>
>>> I started going through The Virtue of Selfishness with a critical
>>> eye after making a similar transition. My impression so far is that
>>> even her morality is tainted by her bad epistemology. (I think she
>>> has some insights about some common irrationalities or bad patterns
>>> people can get into, but her own solutions leave something to be
>>> desired.)
>
> Why does LT think that Rand’s epistemology taints her morality? Like
> in what ways do Rand's ideas about induction and justification show up
> in her writing about morality?

If she'd thought about that, and come up with anything good to say, I
guess she would have said it.

It's so easy to say people are wrong, and so much harder to point out
the errors. LT didn't quote Rand's errors anymore than ET's critics
include quotes when accusing him of stuff.

> Even if LT's ideas on this are mistaken, what do you think she sees?
> Any guess on what her explanation would be?

I guess it'd be disappointing, boring, uninformative, evasive...

I think LT's dislike of Rand is *conventional* – if you got answers,
they'd be variations of the same crap you've heard elsewhere.

[Elliot Temple]

On Jul 10, 2018, at 4:49 AM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas <fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

LT's message is designed to imply she has sophisticated opinions and does serious study. But that's a lie.

LT is presenting a narrative:

- LT reads philosophy books like VoS

- LT reads with a critical eye

- LT is improving as a philosopher over time

- LT is similar to the forum poster she's replying to (this is sucking up, being socially friendly, attempting the tactic of mutually agreeing with each other that they're both smart)

- LT has an evolving view of the book and will have an even more sophisticated view in the future (soon). This conveniently deflects questions and criticisms at the current time, while also being a brag.

- LT sees things Rand didn't, like taints.

- LT knows more about both epistemology and morality than Rand.

- LT is competent and knowledgeable enough to pronounce judgment (even while she hasn't finished her critical VoS reread – she must be clever to have figured things out so early).

- Superior-being-LT recognizes the good parts of Rand, and gives Rand partial credit. This puts LT in the superior social status position over Rand, like a teacher grading a student. (And teachers largely don’t justify their grading, and even asking for a justification is seen as a bit of a challenge to authority to be avoided without a major reason, and even with a reason sometimes you better not.)

- Rand's knowledge is parochial – it’s about common parts of our current culture. Whereas LT's knowledge, like how to read with a critical eye, and how to recognize philosophical taints, is more important.

- LT has high standards and desires better solutions than Rand offered. (Also implied here, as a prerequisite for this evaluation: LT understands what problems Rand was addressing and what Rand’s solutions were, including how well they work in practice.)

All of this is the point of the message. It's all lies – LT is narrating herself as great without earning it.

To ask for the details of what LT means is an OK response. It’s good to see she didn’t give the details and care about the details (lots of people are deeply confused about the difference between a claim or conclusion and an argument or reasoning, so LT will fool them much more easily). But there aren't any worthwhile thoughts to ask for! LT is following a strategy designed around not needing such details. Getting people to think she has some details in her mind, worth asking about, is a big part of the point of the message. The point is to earn some credit – even ambiguous, partial credit – for knowing things without having to know anything. (And it's more effective on a lot of other people besides Kate! It gets LT more credit with many others.)

If LT knew stuff, she wouldn't be playing this social maneuvering game. She'd say content and show off her knowledge. The tweet is just layers and layers of fakeness. Part of the method is people assume you wouldn't lie so boldly and brazenly – if someone says once that they know stuff, maybe they're lying, but if they repeat it 20 times (in different ways, with different sorts of clarity and unclarity, some of which fool different audience members better) then people think there must be some truth to it, like where there's smoke there's fire. It’s like how people have trouble standing up to the Democrats – people think if they’ve heard about racism (or Islamophobia, global warming, Israeli atrocities, college rape epidemic, etc...) hundreds of times then it can’t just all be a total lie, it must be half right.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

[Elliot Temple]

Why doesn’t everyone use the same strategy as LT?

- some people don’t care much about intellectual status, pursue other things. like standard social climbing. intellectual status is just one factor in overall social status – and it’s broadly seen as second tier (actors and senators are more popular, and higher social status, than authors and scientists – this is significantly true even in “nerdy” subcultures, let alone in the whole West). LT hasn’t gotten far at social climbing in general, but hopes to climb in a few “intellectual” groups like the Popper and Less Wrong communities (that actually operate mostly by social status, not intellect).

- lots of people try to do it some and there’s competition over who can appear smarter, more rational, etc. many find the competition hard, don’t succeed much early on, and partly give up.

- one of LT’s skills, that she uses here, is how to brag so much without appearing arrogant (to a conventional perspective), or being noticed to be bragging, or being noticed to be saying a bunch of hot air (consistently over time in many posts) without substance. LT has culturally-tuned disguising skills (those are some of the standard social status competition skills). It takes skill to know how to say “I’m awesome” in ways that people get the message but without thinking that’s what you said – that takes a lot of sensitivity to culture and learning the rules for it (which are subtle and unwritten) and keeping up with trends and changes. How indirect and unclear should you be, in which ways? LT has learned a bunch about that. How do you keep suggesting you have lots of great substance elsewhere, but you never do, but people don’t see the pattern? LT has skill at varying what she says in the culturally-proper ways.

- this stuff works better if other people praise you, agree you’re smart, say they had private conversations with you in which you knew lots and even taught them a few things, etc. part of how you win is with alliances, networking, sucking up to people. it’s also good to have arms-length fans who post some positive comments on your social media, hit the Like button, upvote your links on reddit, etc. there’s a major popularity contest element.

- some people are actually trying to be rational, even if they aren’t very good at it. they at least have more respect for reason than LT does. they don’t want to be a fake. to be a fake like LT requires heavy rationalization or else you wouldn’t respect yourself. not everyone is as dishonest as LT, not everyone’s head is so packed full of evasions and rationalizations.

- you do get asked for some real content sometimes. you can’t 100% avoid it. you need some strategy to deal with that. this can be hard. it keeps some people away. there are various things LT can do about this in order to have the occasional bit of content that holds up to a little scrutiny from people who are already biased in favor of it:

+ use other people’s content. to a large extent you can use *published* ideas for this if they aren’t too well known. but you can also make friends with people and get them to share some ideas with you privately. LT’s friends are mostly fakers, too, but some may be a bit less fake than her so she can leech a bit from them here and there (they may be thrilled for the opportunity for her to post their ideas because more people read her posts and they don’t know how to get any attention). And anyway LT can get plenty of ideas to use from DD alone.

+ be confusing and pretend it’s deep. blame people’s lack of understanding on them. include signals you will do this to scare people off of challenging you. see *An Untitled Letter* by Rand in PWNI.

+ me-too posts. “build on” someone else’s work, mostly by repeating it. disguise how little you’re adding.

+ say well known things that are well known to sound smart to most people in our culture. dress them up in some new clothes so you don’t come off as repetitive.

+ say something “controversial” – and label it as a bold idea. then it doesn’t matter if you’re wrong as long as you can claim that maybe some unspecified parts of it are right. you can even claim that your work is especially important because even a small improvement to what everyone takes for granted would be valuable, and not many people can challenge the status quo like that and help unblind the world of its prejudices and entrenched beliefs.

+ say something “controversial” where the point is to get two standard groups to argue with each other, and you say some things agreeing and disagreeing with both sides. if done well, people will be too distracted to notice that the parts they agree with you about (when you attack the side they aren’t on) are unoriginal. say some superior-sounding stuff about how it’s not black-and-white and you see the nuances so you can’t fully agree with either side.

+ attack easy targets in ways that people like. disguise it a bit. make it sound smart. if they are in the right emotional state, they won’t check very closely for real, new substance.

+ be a critic instead of presenting positive ideas. demand really high standards – and say you’re smart enough to be close to meeting them with your own ideas. it’s pretty easy to criticize anything for not meeting some optimistic standards about how stuff could be even better. and use generic criticisms – it’s pretty easy to criticize anything if you use generic, dumb criticism (like ways of being picky or hairsplitting) – but disguise them (partly by saying you’re precise not picky, you just operate on a higher level of detail than most people so the picky stuff matters for you – which is a thing that could be true, but in your case it isn’t, but most people can’t really tell which sorts of being picky are actually legitimate precision and which are crap.)

Elliot Temple
www.elliottemple.com

[Kate Sams]

> I guess it'd be disappointing, boring, uninformative, evasive…

If LT doesn’t actually have substantive, detailed content to back up what she wrote, that’s such a crap move.

If this is the case, it’s as though she’s trying to cash in on Rand’s flawed epistemology, which her audience already agrees is bad, in order to trash Rand’s morality.

It’s as though she’s saying, “Think about how bad Rand’s epistemology is. Well, I figured out that “even her morality” (these ideas that might appear good to people) is tainted by her bad epistemology. I’m not going to give any details about how this tainting happens, though. Just know that it happens."

[Elliot Temple]

On Jul 10, 2018, at 12:57 PM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas <fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2018, at 11:50 AM, anonymous FI <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 4:49 AM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas <fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/permalink/10156356906109904/
>>>>
>>>> anyway, LT replies:
>>>>
>>>>> I started going through The Virtue of Selfishness with a critical eye after making a similar transition. My impression so far is that even her morality is tainted by her bad epistemology. (I think she has some insights about some common irrationalities or bad patterns people can get into, but her own solutions leave something to be desired.)
>>>
>>> Why does LT think that Rand’s epistemology taints her morality? Like in what ways do Rand's ideas about induction and justification show up in her writing about morality?
>>
>> If she'd thought about that, and come up with anything good to say, I guess she would have said it.
>>
>> It's so easy to say people are wrong, and so much harder to point out the errors. LT didn't quote Rand's errors anymore than ET's critics include quotes when accusing him of stuff.
>>
>>> Even if LT's ideas on this are mistaken, what do you think she sees? Any guess on what her explanation would be?
>>
>> I guess it'd be disappointing, boring, uninformative, evasive…
>
> If LT doesn’t actually have substantive, detailed content to back up what she wrote, that’s such a crap move.

Yes, it's crap intellectually. And socially as I posted about. And it's extra crap to take advantage of people's good will (giving the benefit of the doubt) in discussions.

Because stuff like this is common, people often assume I don't have any more substance than what I say upfront immediately. This is problematic because there are lots of legit reasons not to lead with everything you know!

> If this is the case, it’s as though she’s trying to cash in on Rand’s flawed epistemology, which her audience already agrees is bad, in order to trash Rand’s morality.

Yeah and they know almost nothing about Rand's epistemology. They just think it's inductivist, and they are Popperian, so they know better. There's little more to it than that.

Most of them don't know that Rand wrote little about induction, and lots of other stuff about epistemology – most of it good and Popper-compatible. see:

http://curi.us/1579-objectivist-and-popperian-epistemology

induction wasn't some core idea Rand built the rest on; she barely mentioned it. many Objectivists think induction is a core idea, but they're mistaken. there are core epistemology things Rand built on, which they associate with induction, but Popper showed how to get in a different way. (stuff like realism and the existence of a third way besides infallibility and skepticism – some way for fallible knowledge to exist, be effective in reality, and be acquired by non-omniscient humans).

> It’s as though she’s saying, “Think about how bad Rand’s epistemology is. Well, I figured out that “even her morality” (these ideas that might appear good to people) is tainted by her bad epistemology. I’m not going to give any details about how this tainting happens, though. Just know that it happens."

the "even" is so dishonest. it's sorta implying Rand's morality is her best par to be respected. but LT is attacking that and actually therefore implying that all of Rand is pretty bad. and the reason i call this dishonest is LT dislikes Rand's morality in major ways – see her Twitter complaint about it being judgmental that i quoted in the first post in this thread. you don't be like "omg too judgmental" if you're sympathetic to Oist morality. so actually LT just kinda despises Oist morality (she didn't used to, btw) and ridicules it, but that's not what she communicates in this FB post.

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

[Justin Mallone]

> It’s as though she’s saying, “Think about how bad Rand’s epistemology is. Well, I figured out that “even her morality” (these ideas that might appear good to people) is tainted by her bad epistemology. I’m not going to give any details about how this tainting happens, though. Just know that it happens.”

FWIW Kate, LT has some additional public comments on her ideas about Rand’s morality, epistemology etc. I do not think they are high quality, detailed arguments. Tweets/threads linked below since I thot you might be interested.

https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/965903997285609472

https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/977535205887102977

https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1014611074010583040

-JM

[Kate Sams]

On Jul 9, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Lulie Tanett (LT) spent many years acknowledging she didn't know enough about TCS, Rand, Popper, FI, etc. She thought she should learn more, rather than claiming to already know it. She planned to.
>
> But, year after year, she didn't. And unless she learned stuff, the FI community was never going to change its position: next step, she should learn things. FI has objective standards for expertise.
>
> So, failing to earn it, she left FI to seek a *path to the unearned*. Now she pretends to be wise (but still hasn't learned much). She engages with communities that don't have objective standards for knowledge, and instead judge people by social status kinda of crap.

[…]

> LT was attacking Rand on twitter a couple days ago (and not for the first time):
>
> https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1014318909472768001
>
>> ME: "I was reading an article* on the difference between being critical and being judgemental."
>>
>> FRIEND: "Hey, what if instead of critical rationalism, we had 'judgemental rationalism'?"
>>

>> ME: "You mean — Randian rationalism?”

Consider the idea of LT seeking the unearned while also considering that she thinks Oism is judgmental (in a flawed way).

Those *both* are attacks on justice.

OPAR:

> “Justice” is the virtue of judging men’s character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.

A man deserves that which he has earned.

[…]

> The science that defines a criterion for evaluating volitional beings is morality. To be able to deal properly with men, therefore, it is essential that one determine their relationship to the laws of morality. It is essential that one pronounce moral judgment.


So, the virtue of justice involves:

- Judging people and their actions. Pronouncing moral judgment.

- Granting people only that which they’ve earned.

First, consider a virtuous person. Wouldn’t he *want* others to morally judge him and then give him what he deserves? Wouldn’t he *want* this type of world where men are judged morally, virtues are rewarded to the degree that they exist in someone, and vice is condemned? This world is not only objectively best if life is the standard, but *he* will get judged and rewarded for his virtues.

Now, what about someone who wants the unearned (e.g. money, approval, reputation)? Does it make sense for him to be *against* moral judgment? If so, why? I’m guessing because he is afraid that people will judge him and discover his lies? See below: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”[1] And then he won’t get the unearned that he is seeking?

Or is something else going on? I’m unclear on this.


[1] In the essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”, Rand writes:

> It is their fear of *this* responsibility that prompts most people to adopt an attitude of indiscriminate moral neutrality. It is the fear best expressed in the precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” But that precept, in fact, is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.
>
> There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.
>
> The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “*Judge, and be prepared to be judged*.”

[anonymous FI]

On Jul 13, 2018, at 5:48 PM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas

<fallibl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us
> [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Lulie Tanett (LT) spent many years acknowledging she didn't know
>> enough about TCS, Rand, Popper, FI, etc. She thought she should learn
>> more, rather than claiming to already know it. She planned to.
>>
>> But, year after year, she didn't. And unless she learned stuff, the
>> FI community was never going to change its position: next step, she
>> should learn things. FI has objective standards for expertise.
>>
>> So, failing to earn it, she left FI to seek a *path to the unearned*.
>> Now she pretends to be wise (but still hasn't learned much). She
>> engages with communities that don't have objective standards for
>> knowledge, and instead judge people by social status kinda of crap.
>
> […]
>
>> LT was attacking Rand on twitter a couple days ago (and not for the
>> first time):
>>
>> https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1014318909472768001

She attacked Rand more:

http://curi.us/2041-discussion#c10124

And wrote other nasty stuff:

http://curi.us/2041-discussion#c10134

(that's not directly about Oism but does contradict Oism)

> [1] In the essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational
> Society?”, Rand writes:
>
>> It is their fear of *this* responsibility that prompts most people to
>> adopt an attitude of indiscriminate moral neutrality. It is the fear
>> best expressed in the precept: “Judge not, that ye be not
>> judged.” But that precept, in fact, is an abdication of moral
>> responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in
>> exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.
>>
>> There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so
>> long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral
>> values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is
>> possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer,

Rand does lots of commas I think are bad.