The use of such childish examples, also only reduces discussion to "I am right, therefore you are wrong," and subsequent " child stories that have no bearing on the reality of the discussion, except to reduce it to nothing more than "cliches and sloganeering as the method of discourse."
In your last paragraph, you misquoted me so as to to say that I "deflect" your "criticism," further saying that "objectivism treated the ethics of enlightened self interest with similar nonchalance." Such statements without supporting explanation also decrease the level of discourse to the same lows I have already described. This is further seen in your reference to "libertarian obsession..." and "indifferentism..." which you fail to support. And then state that such "stem directly from the deficiencies in Rand's ethical theory." Which is pure unsupported hogwash. Libertarian positions have developed from a number of different schools of thought, of which Randianism has never even been a necessary ingredient.
Your deeper vision was not, and I pointed it out. You merely mentioned that some seemingly kind acts are not truly kind, and anyway they cannot be legislated about, then proceeded to parse my debating style. But truly kind acts exist. And so I ask again (see #225):
The man has an excess of $100. Some other has a need of $100. If the man acts kindly, both he and the other one have their needs met. If the man acts selfishly, only his needs are met. Do you maintain the ethical equivalence of the two behaviors, and if so, on what rational basis?
you misquoted me
I did not misquote you as anyone reading this thread can see.
bkmk