Again, someone either believes that their own assessment of Communism or stories from the Bible reflects the most rational frame of mind, or they don’t. That’s just a fact.
Instead…
I’m the one suggesting that interpretations in the is/ought world are derived existentially such that a definitive interpretation does not appear able to be pinned down.
You know, assuming any of us at all have any capacity at all to do anything at all of our own free will.
It remains black and white so long as you don’t bring out the shades of grey. And you don’t. You don’t go into any detail.
If noting one’s assessment of Communism as the embodiment of “I” being an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which I construe dasein in my signature threads isn’t bursting at the seams with the potential for ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty…what argument is?
And, in my view, one will never go into enough detail with objectivists of you ilk until they share your own details.
I don’t throw away the tools of philosophy.
Then you are not using them.
In other words, if I really were using them, I would think like you do. I get that part, but: when are you going to get it too?
I suggest only that, in a universe in which we do have some measure of free will, they are of limited use value and exchange value in regard to assessing particular human behaviors as [morally] either necessarily good or bad.
They have value to other people.
Then we are back to the components of my own moral philosophy in assessing those values.