Then you don't understand the reflexive property, it's role in math or Aristotelian logic (which brings us to another point: Ayn Rand did not come up with this gem... it comes from Aristotelian dialectical reasoning: the base of reasoning by logic---or do you think that's for dopes, too?)
A=A for example may be used as a point of departure for any logical argument, such as that what we believe to be right derives from natural law. Without such a property, you cannot argue the validity of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The concept that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights derives from Natural Law. If you don't accept Natural Law as the basis for a discussion on what it right and wrong, then you have no basis for discussing the legal basis of our society... and the whole thread unravels.
Ergo, the reflexive property is useful and interesting because without it we have no common basis for discussion, we can agree about nothing because we cannot agree upon a starting point, and logic and reason cease to exist. If you still believe that this property is "for dopes", I suggest reading a little more on the basis of Western Civilization and Aristotelian logic. If you *still* don't change your mind, then you must believe that logic, reason and Western Civilization are for dopes. :-)
"If you *still* don't change your mind, then you must believe that logic, reason and Western Civilization are for dopes."
I don't think that will be compelling argument to many folks on FR, who think that logic and reason are what politicians do every day, i.e., state talking points, insult the other party, impugn the motives of the other party, bring up irrelevant conflicts of the other party, repeat talking points, etc. This is the political dialogue that currently exists, and what many have subsequently confused with logical argument, since they've heard that it is 'argument' between the two parties. I sometimes wish that just one candidate would explain basic logic to his crowd before speaking. Just seeing a single one say that because we know A->B does not mean B->A or -A->-B, and give an example, would warm my heart.