THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[BaalChatzaf]

Eem yavoh l'hargechah hashkeem l'hargoh -- If he comes to murder you, rise up early and slay him first.

Babylonian Talmud, San Hedrin 72A. This is the survival manual of a people who have been on everyone's hit list for over 2000 years. We are still here.

The trouble is you can't know for sure he is coming to murder you until he does. If you are wrong you could start a war.

And if you don't, you might end up dead. Life is a hazardous proposition.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

And if you don't, you might end up dead. Life is a hazardous proposition.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Life amongst crazy people is certainly a hazardous propostion.

[DonOttavio]

Barbara,

Isn't what you are doing exactly what you criticized Ayn Rand for doing?

Just a few cents from a dispassionate observer.

=============================

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara,

Isn't what you are doing exactly what you criticized Ayn Rand for doing?

Just a few cents from a dispassionate observer.

Don, I dont know what specifically you're referring to. Please explain.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

Just a small point concerning the Objectivist lineage of the position evidently now being expressed by Craig Biddle and Yaron Brook in this area:

As I recall, Leonard Peikoff was advocating these military offensives against Iran on the Bill O'Reilly TV program in the period between the 9/11 attack on the US and our invasion of Afghanistan. He did not want us to invade the latter. He wanted us to instead attack Iran. (I can't recall now why he thought we should respond to the attack on us with a counterattack on Iran. Perhaps he saw Iranian powers as the ideological font; perhaps as source of armaments to Hamas ilk; perhaps both.) His preference for exclusively aerial bombing, nuclear if necessary, and his ideas about the moral conduct of such a campaign are beng echoed by these other fellows now.

Is this Peikoff interview/appearance archived somewhere in audio or video format? Can somebody point me to a source?

Alfonso

[Barbara Branden]

Alfonso asked: "Is this Peikoff interview/appearance archived somewhere in audio or video format? Can somebody point me to a source?"

Here's an article by Peikoff that deals with the same issue:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=5148

And see, for a report on the O'Reilly interview:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=7748

And an article, urging war against Iran -- in 1989:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_...cle&id=5361

Barbara

[tjohnson]

I still don't see the point about "looting" or "territorial expansion" in regard to Iran. And that is where the nuking of presumed innocents is being advocated and debated -- NOT for the purpose of seizing their land or the businesses operating on them, but for the purpose of annihilating their government and its ideological support structure. Still looks an awful lot like self-defense to me, though in need of some rethinking about the specific targets.

REB

Are you for real? Where does 'self-defense' enter the equation when you are nuking another country? Perhaps you don't understand the difference between 'defense' and 'offense', I know the difference is subtle.

[BaalChatzaf]

Are you for real? Where does 'self-defense' enter the equation when you are nuking another country? Perhaps you don't understand the difference between 'defense' and 'offense', I know the difference is subtle.

As subtle as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is how we beat the Japs. They attacked us, so we ground them into the dirt. It turned out in the long run to be both in our interest and theirs too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

As subtle as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is how we beat the Japs. They attacked us, so we ground them into the dirt. It turned out in the long run to be both in our interest and theirs too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In the long run the earth will probably be a cold black stone in space so I guess nothing really matters in the long run. It's a good way to justify all sorts of behaviour. I have to beat you but it's for your own good, etc.

[BaalChatzaf]

As subtle as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is how we beat the Japs. They attacked us, so we ground them into the dirt. It turned out in the long run to be both in our interest and theirs too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In the long run the earth will probably be a cold black stone in space so I guess nothing really matters in the long run. It's a good way to justify all sorts of behaviour. I have to beat you but it's for your own good, etc.

I have to beat you and it is for MY good. God save of from folks who do terrible things for the good of others. One should do terrible things (if one must) for one's own good.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

I have to beat you and it is for MY good. God save of from folks who do terrible things for the good of others. One should do terrible things (if one must) for one's own good.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ah, that's more like it. You have to beat me because you have a need to. At least you're not using that 'for your own good' bullshit.

Edited September 12, 2007 by general semanticist

[9thdoctor]

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23857#entry297169

For all I know this is an annual 9/11 event, but I see that Craig “Bomb the Madrassahs” Biddle is doubling down with the material that inspired this thread. His new piece has been reproduced on OO, where I’ve spent enough time lately that I find myself weighing the necessity of posting a reply, whether to remain silent is to sanction evil. I ignore a lot of stuff over there, and have never addressed the things written by this Eichmann wannabe* that they repost, to some extent because I will not type out his name without “Bomb the Madrassahs” in the middle, even when he’s gushing like a schoolgirl over Paul Ryan. I fear the moderators won’t go for that. This is like if Comrade Sonia did a revisit on Dialectical Dishonesty, do you just let it go by, unremarked?

* Hannah Arendt’s phrase “banality of evil” just fits him so well, the association is automatic.

[caroljane]

http://forum.objecti...857#entry297169

For all I know this is an annual 9/11 event, but I see that Craig "Bomb the Madrassahs" Biddle is doubling down with the material that inspired this thread. His new piece has been reproduced on OO, where I've spent enough time lately that I find myself weighing the necessity of posting a reply, whether to remain silent is to sanction evil. I ignore a lot of stuff over there, and have never addressed the things written by this Eichmann wannabe* that they repost, to some extent because I will not type out his name without "Bomb the Madrassahs" in the middle, even when he's gushing like a schoolgirl over Paul Ryan. I fear the moderators won't go for that. This is like if Comrade Sonia did a revisit on Dialectical Dishonesty, do you just let it go by, unremarked?

* Hannah Arendt's phrase "banality of evil" just fits him so well, the association is automatic.

Like you weren't depressed enough already Ninth, on Solo LP has reprinted "Death to Islam", possibly another annual event. At least he only calls for insulting and reviling Muslims in speech, although he hints darkly that the righteous will use the sword if necessary. The rant is so wildly alliterative it would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

[9thdoctor]

Solo LP has reprinted "Death to Islam", possibly another annual event.

And how about this one:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9359

Death to Islam. Today is a day of remembrance when it ought to be a day of vengeance. Let the Muslims never forget the mistake they made eleven years ago.

Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks.

Psalm 137

[9thdoctor]

Death to Islam. Today is a day of remembrance when it ought to be a day of vengeance. Let the Muslims never forget the mistake they made eleven years ago.

Jeopardy tonight was a rerun, with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and a couple other people in one of their celebrity tournaments. I hope Kareem, being Muslim, hasn’t forgotten the mistake he made eleven years ago.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hell, I'm not against the "summary elimination of Islamist regimes."

I'm even for the summary elimination of all one-world government regimes.

I just don't know how to do it without the summary elimination of a butt-load of innocent people.

That's a funny word, "summary."

Makes you think about magic tricks that turn into long, drawn-out nightmares...

Michael

[9thdoctor]

weighing the necessity of posting a reply, whether to remain silent is to sanction evil.

I think I’m going to ignore it. No one else has replied to it, so it doesn’t seem to be attracting much attention. I’ll just draw more eyeballs to it if I make a stink, and I won’t be allowed to reply properly once the conversation goes the way it inevitably will go.

[Richard Wiig]

weighing the necessity of posting a reply, whether to remain silent is to sanction evil.

I think I'm going to ignore it. No one else has replied to it, so it doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. I'll just draw more eyeballs to it if I make a stink, and I won't be allowed to reply properly once the conversation goes the way it inevitably will go.

You could actually ask him to clarify for you. That would actually be objective, rather than simply taking it to mean what you, perhaps, want it to mean.

[william.scherk]

On 9/18/2006 at 3:10 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brook said:

Whenever a nation initiates aggression against us, including by supporting anti-American terrorist groups and militant causes, it has forfeited its right to exist, and we have a right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat it poses.

Forfeited its right to exist?

Brook said:

Whether and under what conditions torture is practical is a specialized military question. The moral point is: If and to the extent torture is an effective technique to save American lives, and it is used on those who are initiating force against us, then it is morally obligatory.

Torture is morally obligatory?

Brook said:

Terrorists caught on the battlefield are not innocent until proven guilty; they are by that fact proven guilty of pursuing the deaths of Americans. Just as it is legitimate to kill them in the battlefield, so it is legitimate to use whatever force is necessary on them in an effort to achieve victory once they are caught.

Being a terrorist and being caught on a battlefield makes you automatically guilty with no further need for proof? What kind of battlefield does a terrorist fight on and how do you determine he is actually a terrorist?

I see some heavy-handed conceptual package dealing going on here.

Michael raises some interesting issues.

-- I have always thought that there are very good reasons for Western nations not to torture. The first and foremost in my mind is that doing so 'allows' or justifies the 'other side' to do the same to American/Canadians, military or civilian. It is, as Brant points out in his opinion, also of dubious effectiveness. One can always assume going in that 'the other side' has done spectacularly ugly things, criminal things, war crimes, bestial offences against humanity -- as with ISIS in Syria/Iraq. 

The other side is thus morally corrupt, monsters or fiends from the point of view of basic humanity. 

Giving anyone 'carte blanche' to react to the inhuman monsters with torture ... results in that action becoming a norm, justified because of 'the other guys.'   "We" become the same kind of "beast."

(built from some blocks of understanding of the Syrian state and its gruesome torture machine.

)

Edited September 18, 2016 by william.scherk
Emphases added to MSK's quote

[william.scherk]

On 12/1/2006 at 6:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they are to vote for Bush, study

ahem...

The source is Pravda...

At least some people agree with all this...

This is an absorbing thread to re-read, with some folks at the height of their powers, with Barbara Branden providing moral clarity from the vantage of her years of observation and study.

I couldn't remember if I had looked further at the time, beyond the Pravda cite and story.  So I followed a few dead links upon a search, and discovered that one of my skeptic stalwarts (David Gorski/Orac/"Respectful Insolence") had addressed the un-reviewed N = 69 study ... it's timely. At least for me.

Quote

[...] When I encounter a study that seems to confirm my biases, as a skeptic, I try very hard to be even more skeptical than usual, because I would hate to be caught trumpeting a weak or bogus study as evidence supporting a belief of mine. That would be very embarrassing to me. At the very least, although I might not always succeed, I usually try to be very candid about limitations of studies that I cite. Unfortunately, yesterday, Bora (via Archy) failed to heed that rule. Indeed, he clearly let his politics overwhelm his critical thinking skills when discussing a study. Even Tom Tomorrow fell for it, but I’ve come to expect that of him, given how utterly unskeptical and downright credulous he’s been in the past about, for example, the pseudoscience of the mercury militia. No surprise, either, that Daily Kos gleefully lapped up this twaddle and that the Kossacks are presently merrily gloating over it, with only a precious few comments expressing any critical thinking or skepticism about it at all. Worse, even Sara Robinson over at the usually sane Orcinus fell for this dubious study hook, line and sinker (as did a fellow skeptic Southern Fried Skeptic). It’s obvious that the suppression of skepticism when it comes to comforting studies is not a phenomenon restricted to the right.

Here’s news story about the study that Bora posted about and that’s spreading throughout the liberal blogosphere:

A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out. [...]

Direct link: 

Psychotics prefer Bush? - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

RESPECTFULINSOLENCE.COM

---

I have to take this opportunity to express a bit of disappointment in one of my fellow SB’ers. When I encounter a study that seems to confirm my biases, as a skeptic, I try very hard to be even more skeptical than...

Snapshot of Pravda.ru this moment:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just so we're clear, the main issue in this thread is two-fold:

1. Using Objectivism to validate authoritarianism.
2. Using Objectivism to feel glee for the murder of innocents. (Some try to say indifference, but we know it's glee or at least satisfaction.)

I am viscerally against both.

Others prefer to make a different choice. I believe they would make that same choice irrespective of philosophy, ideology or religion.

And Russia, Bush, Islam, and all that? Nothing much. They are secondary and interchangeable against authoritarianism and feeling glee for killing innocents.

Michael