I did not re-write it, I was responding to how it was written in this thread. However, when I checked Atlas it said "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil" and that looks to me as if the quotation is accurate. Which means, I do not understand your comment.

That is not what the quote says. It is fallacy only in your rewriting.

And that was the point of the Galt quote. There are always the two sides, A or not-A, and she did not say that any two positions in any dispute exhaust the possibilities. She was referring to the common bromide about there are 'always two sides' as meaning that both sides always have some validity so compromise. If one side is right and the other wrong, then comprise means corrupting the right with evil, which is evil, and if neither side is right then compromise means combining the evils without regard to what is right.

Laughing...one might also say that there are "3 Sides of a coin": The two view points representing either philosophy or politics, various mysticism's -(not always about religion) and just from different physical or psychological perspectives. The third side: The edge of the coin, is either the bridge or transition between the two, the truth or...the one or thing, that caused the divide in the first place; depending, on the matter at hand.
Note: the two sides of the coin could also be the same but from a different perspective...suspicion is upon the edge in those matters.

Just an interesting thought.

PS: Just because you make one bad judgement call and go against your knowledge doesn't make you evil.

This is going to sound strange but I have had a number of truly evil people in my life and they always exibit the same character traits.
1. They consider life to be a win/lose situation in which they need to cause loss in order to gain.
2. They consider everything to be "theirs" with no consideration for the real owner.
3. The vilify the person whom they are targeting.
4. They "scapegoat" their personality and motives onto the person whom they are targeting.

Kinda sounds like Bernie Sanders, doesn't it?

I think we're in agreement, that often the "definition" of the terms evil and good is precisely nonsense, based on how the definer feels about what they like and dislike in the behavior of those with whom they disagree.

but it may be necessary to go through the middle to get to the right side.

What I am saying is:
Without a clear definition of the word based upon reality and reason, the word becomes a catch-all for whatever you don't like or agree with.

That is nonsense.

The word denotes and defines a person who is without personal boundaries and who is also destructive.

The definition often depends on who is in power. There are many who would disagree with your choice of "evil" as only applying to the planned demise of another. The politically correct, progressive philosophy chooses to define "evil" as any act that endangers, offends, or disenfranchises any life form able to act independent of other life (they seem to include a human fetus in the same category as parasitic life forms, not protected by their definition of evil). The anti-abortionist regards the imposition of moral judgment on a pregnant human as a form of disenfranchisement of her right to choose to remove a parasitic life form, and therefore "evil" by their standards.

Which land use prohibition legislation are you referring to? Do you have a link to anything on it? What did you do to fight it?

We first need to examine and define the word: Evil.
It means: To plot and plan the demise of another person.
I think that those who abuse animals tend toward evil and certainly lack a conscience but are they evil? No.
Abortion is only evil if the person has full knowledge of the development of her fetus, has a moral awakening, and then goes against her conscience in order to please someone else.

That is the "middle".

Absolutist thinking is the root of rigid ideology. Often judgements of what is "good" or "evil" are based on subjective, emotional thinking. Absolutist abortionists believe anything that stands in the way of aborting a developing child, for any reason, is "evil." Absolutist anti-abortionists believe that any excuse to abort a developing child is "evil." Who is "right" and on the side of "good" usually depends on who is in the strongest position of power, able to impose their subjective view on others who don't share their belief.

Back around when I was a kid with a nifty new driver's license, I recall being told that the ability to compromise was praiseworthy as the American way political parties got things done.
A little math places that date at 1963.
Look at us now . . .
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
And that's just a small part of "look at us now."

When the choice is between evil and good, moral and immoral there are only two choices. A compromise means morality has moved toward immorality, the next move will be another step in the same direction. America as a republic did not fail suddenly, it has been a constant series of missteps which has lead to a communist democracy where we can vote for the political leaders who will dictate the lives of all. When I started in this fight 47 years ago I believed there were trigger points that would 'alert Americans' because we were special and wouldn't go beyond a certain point towards slavery. America (I don't say we anymore because I am not part of the group) has lost its sense of being a republic and as Estienne de la Boiete once pointed out 500 years ago most people want to be slaves and will demand to be so. All that is needed after that is any absurd leader (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Obama, Bush - insert any name here) willing to take command. As Estienne once said it may be that for those who would be free their best chance is to live a life unobserved by the masses for if you get their attention they will either enslave or kill you. There isn't much hope for anything else. When I first started in the fight we defeated "The Land Use Act" to preserve the right to property and its use. The governing body and the masses immediately conceived the EPA which is a thousand times better at destroying property rights. The freedom movement has done nothing but lose ground since although there are times when those involved in living freely claim the tide is turning and more are joining the movement the end result is Obamacare and an ever encroaching bureaucracy that seeks to control every facet of life and with the advent of computers and a massive facility being built in Utah the ability to watch everyone all the time is only months away. The desire of humanity by an large is imprisonment and slavery and the desire of the majority may remain this way until the race dies out.

Hear, hear, Esceptico!

Yes, obviously there is the "black and white" of reason. Establishing the context in which black and white is shown to clearly exist is the difficult part! Those constantly looking only for black and white, at the exclusion of the immensity of the gray, must lead desperately unhappy lives!

We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
Robert Frost

As a generalization, Galt commits a logical fallacy here. His statement is a good example of the “Fallacy of the False Dilemma” (also known as false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, false alternative, black-or-white fallacy) of claiming two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there may be one or more options. Thus the statement can properly be applied only in a very strict discussion as distinct from a general discussion.

"The problem is, most people don't want to acknowledge any truth. Gulchers are the exception."

Au contraire...
Most people, to the extent they are successful, do work with facts and truth.

Arrogance precludes trust and progress. Start with respecting what others get right. From established trust and some shared values, the possibility of additional learning emerged. People are not interested in answers to questions they don't have.

Hmmm, yes. And Don Henley once sung "There's 3 sides to every story: there's yours and there's mine and there's the cold hard truth". The problem is, most people don't want to acknowledge any truth. Gulchers are the exception.

Sorry, analyzes.

Galt's commentary on the lesser of two evils. For one who observes reality and analyses it rationally, there is no confusion, but clarity.