[general_re]

Now you resort to claiming you aren't even capable of understanding why 'good' health is objectively better than 'bad' health?

Of course I'm capable of understanding, if only someone would take the time to prove it to me. So far, no luck. I'm starting to think that it's not possible to prove it, despite repeated claims about how obvious and trivial it is...

I feel for ya, Dom - I really do. On the one hand, you appear to know better than to flat-out assert that it's a self-evident proposition - self-evident propositions are taken as true without anyone being able to prove they are true, and Rand says that everything is rationally accessible and rationally knowable, which self-evident propositions clearly aren't. And on the other hand, really and truly logically proving something that seems so obvious is going to be fiendishly difficult, if not impossible - which I suspect you instinctively know, and which is, I suspect, why you're not exactly bowling everyone over in your rush to provide a proof of this knowable, rationally accessible proposition.

What a shame. Since you can't prove it, and obviously didn't derive the truth of it for yourself, all I can do is conclude that you violated one of the dictates of Rand, and just took that proposition - being healthy is objectively better than being unhealthy - on authority from someone else, or on faith. Don't worry, your secret is safe with me ;)

[Dominic Harr]

Since you can't prove it, and obviously didn't derive the truth of it for yourself,

Heehee.

1. As I said, it is proven. Modern nutritional ideas are based on massive amounts of data. You're simply playing a game.

2. It's *so* proven you, yourself believe it to be a proven fact.

3. When you ask someone else to "prove" something you already know to be a fact, then you've already lost the argument and are sinking deep into rationalization.

Simply weakly repeating, over and over again, "you can't prove it to me" doesn't help your case a bit. That's a game played by kids.