[Morality Games]

The reverse is also true. The more complex you make your way of speaking, the higher probability the audience will not comprehend the meaning of your words whatsoever. I agree that complex ideas require a more complex way of expressing them, however, if clarity and understanding is your goal then you have to write in a way that is easily comprehended while clearly expressing your intended meaning.

Which is what I and academics (in general) do. "Everything should be as complex as necessary, but no more or less than that."

Okay. I understand what you are saying, but I still sort of disagree with the use of 'images'.

The word has an understandable meaning in its field, just like the term 'life' in biology or 'force' in physics, and functions fine once you comprehend the meaning. Intrinistically, a word is just an empty symbol -- it is our power which impresses meaning upon it, not the reverse. Language represents something because beings will it to mean something (refer to an image).

Furthermore, I acknowledge the fact that I have limited knowledge, I do not know everything.

Who knows what you do? But overall, the logical form of Objectivist epistemology does not not acknowledge such limits. When you state you have found the ideal society, the ideal human nature, the ideal economy, the ideal morality, etc, it basically equates to saying you have found the ideal reality, or that you know every abstract of significance. The only thing you don't know is how these abstracts should play out in every particular situation, and that is not a strong restraint.

I also believe that claiming that another person's arguments are invalid on the basis of speculation is wrong, unnecessary, and utterly rude.

I'm not speculating anything. I know what Ayn Rand says other philosophers say, and I know what these philosophers really say, and the two, contrary to her claims, are not the same thing, anymore than Richard Rorty (a pragmatist, albiet one in a different style than myself) accurately represents the views of his opponets, except he is willing to admit this. It is also annoying she thinks the only rational explanation for the behavior of these philosophers is that they are twisted and malevolent, a mentality she seems to have passed along to you.

Everyone has their right to talk and to express their ideas in whatever manner they want to. However, if one actually wants to engage in an intellectual debate with another person with the aims of changing their perspective or correcting one of their principles, then one must be willing to communicate ideas, no matter how complex, in a manner that enables other people to comprehend what you are saying. Keeping in mind that you are on a casual, non-academic forum... one should keep their audience in mind and to be courteous to them.

This seems like a repeat, and I wonder if it really applies to me, since, while I have lost the patience for constant impressing politeness, I'm really not all that rude most of the time. Anyway, in general, my manner of speech isn't that complex -- if it becomes incomprehensible, it isn't because I am playing tricks, but because it is necessary to convey the idea. Some failures are intrinistic to the audience. A mentally handicapped person, for example, utterly lacks even the potential to comprehend certain ideas.

You can't engage in an intellectual debate with someone who abiturarily decides that it is acceptable to change the conventional meaning of a term without explaining in particular (in each and every individual situation) why they deserve do to this, or who is unwilling to admit they don't deserve to do it when they are presented with an argument based on sounder reasoning.