Kind of wondering if this might be a strawman argument.

Have you ever bothered to find out why a person only drinks craft beer?

See, our intentional actions must originate in our thoughts, or else we wouldn't act at all. The only real difference between "speech acts" and other acts is that non-speech acts become factual - we can objectively observe/record/analyze them - while speech acts may be contrived and aren't inherently verifiable. That's we we expect evidence to turn opinions into arguments and facts.

I am one of those who prefer craft beers, having tried Budweiser, because I prefer the range of flavours available from craft beers. I find Bud to be bland and too bitter.

How many people disparage drinkers of Bud "just because" they drink craft beer? I'm sure there are some, but I'm also sure it's not all.

Over-generalizing is fallacious reasoning.

Even your use of phrases like "doesn't produce anything of value" is too vague. Define "produce". Define "anything". Define "value".

I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time writing all this because I believe your too far down the Randian road to intellectual hell to see what I'm on about.

But someone else, who is only teetering on the edge of the abyss, may read this and realize the flaws in your reasoning, and step back to safety.

And that will have been a good thing that I'll have done.

With my words.

Which are actions too.