I owe something to Lindsay Perigo, it seems. That is to send to him (for posting on SOLO) what comprise my Objections to Objectivism.

I will include links and excerpts from my struggle to adequately list and explain my objections ...

This first stuff is my last exchanges with Doug Bandler and Perigo.

From SOLO:

Anarchist Divorcees

Submitted by William Scott Scherk on Tue, 2012-12-18 01:15.

Pick Up Artist and SOLO man of the month Doug seems to read the signals right, and says this:

Her blog's name was "anarchistsoccermom". My guess, an anarcho-Leftist. Probably not a Rothbardian. Laughtner was also influenced by anarcho-Leftist themes. If its not Muslims rampage killing, its probably anarchists. Its been that way for over a century.

Her presumably means Adam Lanza's mom. Doug seems to be thinking that blog Anarchist Soccer Mom is the blog of Nancy Lanza. Maybe.

But.

On Sunday, an essay titled “I am Adam Lanza’s mother” began to receive viral attention. The piece, first published on Blue Review and later reposted in full by the Huffington Post and Gawker among many others, was written by a Boise-based mother struggling with the challenge of living with a son with serious mental health problems. She compares her 13-year-old boy to the gunman who shot dead 20 children and six adults in Connecticut last week.

“I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me,” wrote Liza Long.

Might be that Liza Long is the writer, wasn't Adam's mom, and so Adam wasn't raised by an Anarchist. Not that Doug need deviate from his Those Bitches Are Responsible line.

Erm, Scherk

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2012-12-18 01:21.

Are you the same Scherk who promised not to post here again until he'd written and posted the "Objections to Objectivism" article I challenged him to write, years ago? If so, have you finally concluded it's as impossible for you to do this as I predicted? If you have, is that yet an excuse for breaking your promise?

Promises, promises

Submitted by William Scott Scherk on Tue, 2012-12-18 01:40.

My Objections to Objectivism:

1) wrong on emotion

2) wrong on language acquisition

3) incapable of correction

Nobody really cares about my Objections to Objectivism in the present context of SOLO's man of the hour, Doug Bandler, and his shoddy intellectual goods.

I will admit that there are nutters found on every Objectivish forum. OL has Jerry Story. You have Doug Bandler. That may be the price of freedom. Perhaps you do not host any more nutters per capita than elsewhere, despite appearances.

Well then, Scherk ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2012-12-18 01:44.

... take your snide snot and snark back to Lying. It's not welcome here. If you ever acquire the quality of good faith, reapply.

Scherk the coward

Submitted by Doug Bandler on Tue, 2012-12-18 01:47.

I will admit that there are nutters found on every Objectivish forum. OL has Jerry Story. You have Doug Bandler. That may be the price of freedom. Perhaps you do not host any more nutters per capita than elsewhere, despite appearances.

Dude, you're a fucking coward. You won't even debate any position you hold and the few times you have engaged a smart mind you get crushed; ie the way Michael destroyed you over the Gitmo stuff. You hide with kindred souls over at OLY. Hell, go to ROR and debate Wolfer or Thompson and they'll bitch slap you.

You're a nihilist Scherk. Even in my most flawed moments I have a soul. You can't even spell the word.

Sneak preview of The dim hypothesis - finally

Submitted by gregster on Tue, 2012-12-18 09:18.

Good start William, but there has to be some further fleshing out to your Objections to Objectivism. Is that it, surely not? I don't mean to compare your new work directly with Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis because he took many years formulating that one. I can understand you were responding here without access to your notes. The bane of the iPhone/iPad keyboard commandoes, to coin one of your turns of phrase. How can I counter simple assertions such as "wrong on emotion" "wrong on language acquisition"? I can only guess that "incapable of correction" refers to Ayn Rand's deceased status. I note, encouragingly, if that is your full report, you agree with the Objectivist fundamentals.

Put the full report over at the swamp for the world's edification. I usually hit O-lying's "New Content." I'll look for it there, not impatiently. I see some of you there have been amusing yourselves on the Defamation on SOLO thread, taking stabs at - to O-lying - politically incorrect and incorrect SOLO stuff. Doug needs to rein in some of his genetic slurs but otherwise his opinions are fine as his opinions.

Your head prefect MSK calls SOLO a hate site. If I get the time I'd like to turn that crap on its head. A site that hates evil, as does SOLO, is a Love-for-Humanity site. O-lying promotes hatred for those who put their heads up and try to point towards a solution, and in doing so are seen as worse than the actual evil cunts. Demonstrated forcibly again by this latest piece from Lindsay Perigo.

No point, Gregster ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2012-12-18 09:55.

... addressing Scherk here. I've removed him. His only interest is snark and schisms, not ideas. I am not a sacrificialist, and thus no more interested in paying for his insults of me than I am Leonid's or anyone else's. If, on O-Lying, he responds to your challenge in a way that proves me wrong, I'll be happy to hear about it.

Two Lanzas, Two Americas.

Say What?

Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Tue, 2012-12-18 17:13.

Scherk says Objectivism is: "1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction." I'd love to hear what his reasons for these claims are. Mere assertions aren't persuasive. We need some sort of evidence or argumentation here.

Scherk's objections

Submitted by Doug Bandler on Tue, 2012-12-18 22:48.

"1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction."

I dislike Scherk intensely. But I think he is partially right here. I do think that Rand's views on emotions are partially wrong; not all human emotions are the product of freely chosen values. I also think she was wrong regarding language acquisition. Regarding correction, well her philosophy is what it is but future versions will correct her errors.

But none of this justifies Scherk's (and OLY's) nihilism. Further, I don't see that any of Rand's errors were fatal to the core of her philosophy. (Well, I do often wonder if the NIOF is as rock solid as Objectivistm makes it out to be but put that aside).

I think most philosophers in human history got far more wrong than they did right. Rand got far more right then she did wrong. That was an achievement in and of itself given how hard philosophy is.