Jump to content






Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Pulling the Objectivist Ejection Handle


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Jonathan

Jonathan

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:31 PM

When Objectivists don't have answers to your arguments, in my experience, these are their most commonly used maneuvers to escape the discussion:

The Dish It Out But Can't Take It
After an Objectivist has been very snotty and made all sorts of unwarranted moral and psychological judgments of you during a discussion, right after you substantively blow his arguments out of the water he replies, "You're not being respectful enough to me, so I'm not going to answer your criticisms. Really, I have answers, and it would be very easy for me to rip your arguments to shreds, but I'm not going to lower myself to your level or dignify your behavior."

The Donahue
A variation on the Dish It Out But Can't Take It in which the besieged Objectivist mimics Rand's appearance on Donahue and states that he might consider answering the questions if someone other than the original questioner asks with the proper level of politeness and respect that is due the Objectivist. Of course, the question is never asked quite respectfully enough.

The Phantom Battle
"I answered all of your questions a long time ago and I defeated all of your arguments, and I'm not going to go over it all again or give any indication of where or when I answered your questions or what my answers were. So stop asking."

The Unpaid Tutor
"Ayn Rand answered that. I'm not going to do your homework for you. I don't owe you an answer. I only trade value for value, so go look it up yourself."

The Important Sage
A variation on the Unpaid Tutor: "Why are my views on this subject so important to you? Stop looking to me for guidance."

The Stalker Victim
"You're obsessed with me. Why are you always picking on me? You never say anything nice about me. Why do you need to bash me and Objectivism? I'm not going to have anything to do with you anymore."

The Bad Faith Troll
"You're not asking serious questions. You're not arguing in good faith. You're only trolling and asking rhetorical questions to score meaningless points. I'm not going to put up with that. Good bye."

The Territorialist
"This is a site for Objectivists, and you're obviously an anti-Objectivist. Why do you post here? Why don't you go and post at sites where you're free to hate Ayn Rand and Objectivism all you like?"

The Cyber Land Baron
"I own this site. It's my property. I don't like you or want you on my property, and I don't have to answer you or explain myself. Please leave and don't post here again."

The Secret Crime
"I'm not going to answer your questions, and I'm not going to explain why I won't because you know what you did and why I therefore won't answer your questions. Don't try to pretend that you don't know. Pretending just proves that you're dishonest. I'm not going to discuss it with you."

The Magically Shrinking Scope Limitation
"Even though I didn't originally say so, I started this thread to discuss only specific, narrow, limited aspects of a topic, and you're trying to change the subject by discussing implications that I hadn't thought of and that I therefore don't want to discuss, so please only discuss what I want to discuss on this thread."

The Technical Infraction
"Note to the moderators: He's not following the rules. He doesn't have a current photo of himself for his avatar. That's not fair. He should be banned."

J

#2 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 27 December 2011 - 07:27 AM

When Objectivists don't have answers to your arguments, in my experience, these are their most commonly used maneuvers to escape the discussion:

The Dish It Out But Can't Take It
After an Objectivist has been very snotty and made all sorts of unwarranted moral and psychological judgments of you during a discussion, right after you substantively blow his arguments out of the water he replies, "You're not being respectful enough to me, so I'm not going to answer your criticisms. Really, I have answers, and it would be very easy for me to rip your arguments to shreds, but I'm not going to lower myself to your level or dignify your behavior."

The Donahue
A variation on the Dish It Out But Can't Take It in which the besieged Objectivist mimics Rand's appearance on Donahue and states that he might consider answering the questions if someone other than the original questioner asks with the proper level of politeness and respect that is due the Objectivist. Of course, the question is never asked quite respectfully enough.

The Phantom Battle
"I answered all of your questions a long time ago and I defeated all of your arguments, and I'm not going to go over it all again or give any indication of where or when I answered your questions or what my answers were. So stop asking."

The Unpaid Tutor
"Ayn Rand answered that. I'm not going to do your homework for you. I don't owe you an answer. I only trade value for value, so go look it up yourself."

The Important Sage
A variation on the Unpaid Tutor: "Why are my views on this subject so important to you? Stop looking to me for guidance."

The Stalker Victim
"You're obsessed with me. Why are you always picking on me? You never say anything nice about me. Why do you need to bash me and Objectivism? I'm not going to have anything to do with you anymore."

The Bad Faith Troll
"You're not asking serious questions. You're not arguing in good faith. You're only trolling and asking rhetorical questions to score meaningless points. I'm not going to put up with that. Good bye."


The Territorialist
"This is a site for Objectivists, and you're obviously an anti-Objectivist. Why do you post here? Why don't you go and post at sites where you're free to hate Ayn Rand and Objectivism all you like?"

The Cyber Land Baron
"I own this site. It's my property. I don't like you or want you on my property, and I don't have to answer you or explain myself. Please leave and don't post here again."

The Secret Crime
"I'm not going to answer your questions, and I'm not going to explain why I won't because you know what you did and why I therefore won't answer your questions. Don't try to pretend that you don't know. Pretending just proves that you're dishonest. I'm not going to discuss it with you."

The Magically Shrinking Scope Limitation
"Even though I didn't originally say so, I started this thread to discuss only specific, narrow, limited aspects of a topic, and you're trying to change the subject by discussing implications that I hadn't thought of and that I therefore don't want to discuss, so please only discuss what I want to discuss on this thread."

The Technical Infraction
"Note to the moderators: He's not following the rules. He doesn't have a current photo of himself for his avatar. That's not fair. He should be banned."

J


Oh my! That is so choice. Especially:


The Territorialist
"This is a site for Objectivists, and you're obviously an anti-Objectivist. Why do you post here? Why don't you go and post at sites where you're free to hate Ayn Rand and Objectivism all you like?"

I have gotten this verbatim at some O-sites. To the very letter and syllable. But not here at O-living. (MSK, you are a Prince)

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#3 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 27 December 2011 - 08:37 AM

J, this is a classic.

As with all great satire, or the anonymous letter saying "I know what you did! Send money or I will tell.", every part will strike home with somebody.

Why even I, sweet little old lady that I am, was once threatened and abused by a Territorialist, just because I was trespassing.

#4 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 27 December 2011 - 08:56 AM


Why even I, sweet little old lady that I am, was once threatened and abused by a Territorialist, just because I was trespassing.


Yeah, we heard about it!
Posted Image
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#5 Philip Coates

Philip Coates

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:--Playing Sports (running, basketball, body surfing)
    --Literature and History
    --Art Museums
    --Rock 'n Roll, Classical, Country and Western
    --Epistemology
    --Travel
    --Classic Old Movies

Posted 27 December 2011 - 08:59 AM

The Legitimate Ejection
When you're constantly dealing with someone who uses personal insults.

#6 Reidy

Reidy

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA
  • Interests:Architecture, cooking, music, philosophy

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:45 AM

I've used some of these moves on occasion, and this hasn't convinced me to stop. Some people don't have the good will or good manners to be worth talking ideas with, and they have no claim on our time and effort.

#7 Mikee

Mikee

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,130 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:53 AM

A simply F... Y.. would suffice, why waste time? Unfortunately PC rules. Thin skinned = low self-esteem.

#8 Jonathan

Jonathan

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 27 December 2011 - 02:12 PM

J, this is a classic.

As with all great satire, or the anonymous letter saying "I know what you did! Send money or I will tell.", every part will strike home with somebody.

Why even I, sweet little old lady that I am, was once threatened and abused by a Territorialist, just because I was trespassing.



I really enjoy the fact that there are so many Objectivists who act as if they own Objectivism, and they don't want the likes of you on their property. "Get the fuck out of here, you hater of reason" is their branding campaign slogan for "spreading Objectivism."

J

#9 Jonathan

Jonathan

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 27 December 2011 - 02:14 PM

The Legitimate Ejection
When you're constantly dealing with someone who uses personal insults.


Phil, please see The Dish It Out But Can't Take It.

My favorite variation of The Dish It Out But Can't Take It is when the floundering Objectivist says that it would be very easy for him to rip your arguments to shreds, but he's not going to lower himself to your level or dignify your behavior, but then he spends a lot of time calling you names. In his mind, somehow it would be undignified of him to answer the substance of your arguments, but calling you names and making moral and psychological accusations against you somehow isn't an act of "lowering himself" to what he has decided is "your level."

J

#10 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:19 PM

I would like to add a very, very!! respectful annotation to the Donahue, which I think is an important addition to the Better Things to doBetter People to Talk to My Time is too valuable canon, which I characterize as the Pearls Before Swine attitude.

I dunno. I kinda like swine in general, they are contrary to stereotype clean, intelligent and affectionate animals. I have known many and cast lots of things before them and always received good things back, like the bread upon the waters and I got a free pizza with my favourite toppings. Casting pearls I have got back sapphires and emeralds that I like a lot better than pearls. That is only some of the time of course, the times I remember. Mostly I cast the bread and got yelled at for throwing away good bread. Mostly I cast the pearls and the swine trompled them and tried to eat them and choked and I got blamed.

But O, the other few times.

#11 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,994 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 28 December 2011 - 11:56 AM

J, this is a classic.


I second this evaluation.
Prandium gratis non est

#12 PDS

PDS

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,572 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 01:17 PM

J:


This is stronger than new rope.

#13 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:45 PM

You can find those tropes on many discussion boards, regardless of topic, but all the moreso where standards of proof are lacking, in question, or impossible. And The Territorialist and Technical Infraction can be invoked regardless of the substantive discussion.

Goto the Google Groups (formerly Usenet groups) alt.sci.physics or sci.physics.new-theories. You get the same flames, flamewars, name-calling, etc., etc. When The Logical Leap came out, I joined a physics discussion board, read a bit, and then posted a review (below here) and got moderated. My appeal went nowhere for a few days, then it was decided that I could post in a certain topic area, as long as I did not make a habit of trying to post book reviews.

A lot depends on civility. And I agree that my time is precious to me. I choose what to write about, whom to reply to. I usually just drop the discussion, rather than bowing out with an exit. At some level offers of "proof" become irrelevant when people choose to validate experts based on agreement with views they already hold. (See "The Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus" here.)

Barbara Branden has written for OL about the distinction between Ayn Rand's wide ranging analysis of essentials in an argument and copy cat versions by those who admire her works: "You believe that because you are a whim-worshipper." But, here, too, Objectivists have no monopoly on unreasonable interactions. Skeptics are Satan's tools, after all, or perhaps just being paid by corporations to cloud the discussion, or maybe they just lack literary refinement, not having attended Ivy League schools. A friend of mine persuaded me (easily) that Edward deVere wrote the "Shakespeare" plays. Arguments among Oxfordians and Avonians evidence all the same rubrics.

Original Post:
[post]3046786[/post]

Book Review: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics by David Harriman, with an introduction by Leonard Peikoff. New American Library, July 2010. Paperback, 279 pages + vi, illustrations. $16.00.
Despite some flaws in the presentation, David Harriman’s proposal for a new method of scientific methodology is interesting, valuable, and important. Harriman’s thesis is that induction is actually the integration of a new experience with the totality of all previous experience for the purpose of creating a new generalization. One example is enough for a generalization, if it is validly composed. According to Harriman, to be valid, an induction must be derived from a first-level generalization. To demonstrate the truth of his claim, Harriman provides examples from the works of Galileo, Newton, and Dalton, among others.
Harriman has his own new theory of science, dismissing the accepted scientific method. “Today, it is almost universally held that the process of theory creation is nonobjective. According to the most common view, which is institutionalized in the so-called “hypothetico-deductive method,” it is only the testing of theories (i.e., comparing predictions to observations) that gives science any claim to objectivity. Unfortunately, say the advocates of this method, such testing cannot result in proof – and it cannot result even in disproof, since any theory can be saved from an inconvenient observation merely by adding more arbitrary hypotheses. So the hypothetico-deductive method leads invariably to skepticism” (pp. 145-146). Thus, to Harriman, Newton’s experiments did not validate Descartes’ (more correct) theory of light.
David Harriman earned a master's degree in physics from University of Maryland, and a master's in philosophy from Claremont Graduate University. Leonard Peikoff completed a doctorate in philosophy at NYU.


Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#14 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,195 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:44 PM

Jonathan,

One of my favorite dismissals is, "You're just thinking with your emotions."

This is usually said by a person so committed to the emotion of feeling intellectually superior that he does not have to use his brain to actually examine the issue raised. Reading Rand--and accepting her views as dogma--has given him the license to:

1) Turn off his cognition on specific topics,
2) Let his evaluations rule his mind on the same topics,
3) Judge anyone who thinks otherwise as a person who does not use his rational faculty, and
4) Get really nasty if a person persists in challenging him to think cognitively about such issues.

I've gotten a lot of that over the years. To title this dude, let's call him: The Emotion as a Tool of Cognition Spotter.

:)

Michael

Know thyself...


#15 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,195 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:59 PM

The Territorialist
"This is a site for Objectivists, and you're obviously an anti-Objectivist. Why do you post here? Why don't you go and post at sites where you're free to hate Ayn Rand and Objectivism all you like?"

I have gotten this verbatim at some O-sites. To the very letter and syllable. But not here at O-living. (MSK, you are a Prince)

Bob,

I looked you up when you first showed up and I discovered this, but I also came across some really funny stuff.

1. You were blasted and mocked to the gills on a site called Randzapper. The author held you up as a quintessential Randroid. :)

2. A real live quintessential Randroid named Fred Weiss was one of your buds and looked down his nose at the little Randroids who bashed you.

What a hoot!

But here's the kicker. And this is partially (but not primarily) to reciprocate the prince compliment.

Despite your sporadic incursions into socially icky views, you have one of the biggest hearts here on OL. Deep down, you are far more sap than badass and goodness oozes out your pores.

I could easily live next door to you and entrust you with caring for my children with not a shred of concern.

What's more, I got that feeling from reading your posts on other forums and groups. I have never changed my view of you, even when we tangle. On the contrary, reading your posts here on OL, it gets reinforced daily.

Michael

Know thyself...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users