Hokay. Are you prepared to state, now and for the record, that the existence of large numbers of people who enjoy material prosperity all their lives while rejecting a certain philosophy is proof that the philosophy in question is erroneous?
To put it in context, we were testing the following quote: "In fact it is against one's own long-term self-interest to behave irrationally or trample others. Such actions are the exact opposite of selfish -- they're self-destructive."
I was pointing out an objective historical fact: it is eminently possible to "trample others," and not only avoid "self-destruction," but indeed to profit handsomely from trampling others.
So according to the evidence, Mr. Dunn is clearly over-reaching in his assessment of the effects of "trampling others." It is not "a fact," but merely a possible consequence that can be avoided. Obviously you can trample others and get away with it -- it can serve long-term self interest, and self-destruction is not an inevitable consequence.
There is, of course, a difference between "can" and "should." The problem is to provide an objective basis for why one "should not" trample others. It is not enough simply to say we musn't do it, especially when the fact is that we can do it, with apparent impunity.
The question is: is it possible for a philosophy to be "objective" when it is possible to violate its tenets with impunity? Or is it a logical requirement that violating the tenets of an objective philosophy will result in an inevitable consequence?