Some of Robinson's comments have merit, but there's more than a bit of straw-man and ad hominem stuff there. It would have helped his essay enormously, I think, if he'd acknowledged some of the real flaws in RAH's writing. Such as his tendency to pontificate on subjects that he didn't actually know much about e.g. raising a family, and about what people should be like.
For example, I think that specialists are really important, and one would have to be pretty blinkered to not understand that a person could be a fully valued human being despite being fundamentally unable to manage many of the items in his little list. If I were having blood vessels in my brain unblocked, to choose an example not at all at random, I'd prefer that it be done by someone who spent a lot of time working on such surgery. Their ability to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, etc. would not be of great concern to me. (Setting a bone would be part of their training. Comforting the dying should be part of a doctor's skill set, especially if they're dealing with touch-and-go stuff like brain surgery.)
no subject
For example, I think that specialists are really important, and one would have to be pretty blinkered to not understand that a person could be a fully valued human being despite being fundamentally unable to manage many of the items in his little list. If I were having blood vessels in my brain unblocked, to choose an example not at all at random, I'd prefer that it be done by someone who spent a lot of time working on such surgery. Their ability to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, etc. would not be of great concern to me. (Setting a bone would be part of their training. Comforting the dying should be part of a doctor's skill set, especially if they're dealing with touch-and-go stuff like brain surgery.)