The Moral Cowardice of American Conservatism

[syrakusos]

The fact is, there is no clear trade-off between the size of a country's welfare state and its level of economic freedom. Denmark's free enterprise system is as free as ours, and Canada's, New Zealand's, and Australia's are freer while also having more generous welfare states. One may heartily endorse Brooks' moral argument for free enterprise while also endorsing the moral argument for the welfare state. Randians, on the other hand, have at their disposal other property-rights-based arguments against redistribution, even after the slippery-slope argument above has been refuted on empirical grounds. Still, the facts leave the force of those arguments greatly reduced.

Good luck with Thanksgiving dinner!

My brother and I went go around on this general topic and he started one by pointing to data showing that among the US states, direct taxes on businesses have less impact on prosperity than we like to claim.

Also, on a more theoretical level, if funding of government is voluntary, and if market agents provide defense and adjudication, then there is no reason why the government could not provide a Rawlsian "floor". (Legislation and law would still be the govrenment's primary role. They might even provide superior police to go with their superior courts.)

In terms of social welfare, it is obvious that capitalism makes it affordable, as the richest nations have the most to dole out. This is Sir Anthony Giddens' thesis as well. It so happens that globally, Giddens' university textbook on sociology is the most popular. (In the USA it is those of Marxist John Macionis.) Anyway, Giddens says that socialism fails to provide the material comfort we need, but does provide the social criticism we should address.

One argument we libertarians never settle is the duty of the state to protect children. We do not want the government to take ownership of children. We recoil when children are removed from the home. We are shocked if public schools trump parental choice. But one of the arguments against so-called "anarcho-capitalism" is that if you do not subscribe to a defense agency, no one will protect you, which is the primary duty of the state. If the state has this compelling duty,then the "slippery slope" is painted in shades of gray. I know from my own interactions with them that many homeless argue well for their right to be left alone. They do not want to be cared for - while panhandling for spare change, of course,. But, the point remains. If you are at that level and do not want to be - the little girl living in a car during your sister's Thanksgiving message - then why would the government not be an agency to protect you from unwanted circumstances, especially in the case of a child?

[syrakusos]

Thanks for the reflections in this thread. I think that individual rights and the rightness of the rational selfishness they permit must be championed in public debate if a durable libertarianism is to expand among the citizens and in law. Defense of the utility of laissez-faire capitalism is also necessary, but it needs to be tied to individual rights as primary.

My own case of dissuasion is here.* To that note I would add that there are conceptions relevant to ethics that many people hold, but have not themselves identified explicitly nor yet heard from others. I’m thinking in particular of the idea that life is an end in itself and the extension to the rational animal that the life of each is an end in itself.*

On Rebirth of Reason, Stephen Boydstun wrote:

... One thing that seems important for persuasion is an appeal to more basic principles and values that you both already accept. That is, one might be able to reach a deeper principle that is inconsistent with the view one is trying to show incorrect. Let me share a personal example. ... There I was, open-minded, devoted to science, and subscribing to the morality of altruism. Then Rand asked me: "Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? I..." I think that appealing to deeper shared principles ...

The problem, of course, is finding those shared principles. Before that can happen, though, something else must be in place, which you glided over. "There I was open-minded..." No one we argue with is open-minded at that moment; and neither are we. No one learns during an argument. It is possible to affect listeners, however. The spectator who has no skin in the game can be more objective.

Given that, though, then finding those basic shared principles is the challenge. The altruist of the Thanksgiving Dinner Argument is not going to stop with helping the poor. You whip out Selene's chart and the sob sister will reply that numbers can prove anything. You were persuaded at a very basic level, metaphysics, before you met the logical argument - actually a rhetorical question. If you believed - as post-modernists claim - that logic proves nothing because logic can prove anything - then you would have remained an altruist.

Consider Kantian deontology or Betham's calculus of pleasure: sure, you have a right to your own happiness, but not if...

And we have the same kind of argument: ... but not if it violates the rights of others.

I believe that you and I agree on what a "right" is. I am just as sure that the participants here could argue till Doomsday on what a right is and is not. You and I probably disagree on what a right is not. A right is that for which you do not need to ask: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness... But here I have agreed with Ayn Rand's claim that handguns should be registered. You have a "right" to collect them, own them, use them, but, like an automobile, or a nuclear power plant, they inherently possess a highly dangerous quality that makes ownership of them a threat to the rights of others. That's my case. I don't want to argue it here. I just use it to show that finding basic agreements - and winning arguments - are two different things.

That is the problem here with "The Moral Cowardice of American Conservatism." When the argument starts like that, it is not going anywhere. I agree with the Objectivist view, but note that the problems of American conservatism go deeper than politics and deeper than ethics, right down to those metaphysical issues of what is and is not possible in the universe. On that, there can be no political agreement.

Also, as a PS, I just want to note that you and I had a falling out on RoR because you objected to my having fun at your expense. I find philosophers amusing. I take you seriously. The two planes of meaning intersected. You were put off, rightfully, (RIghts again....) I am sorry, old man, but there it is.

[Brant Gaede]

I have to void my Callahan reference for writing a book called "Contact" for now. I can't find it.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

William,

That one was a dud.

Stinker.

You're trying too hard on the target people, trying too hard to position yourself as oh-so-superior, and totally missing the message.

Oh well, win some, lose some ...

I do not know if I should apologize to Dennis Hardin, but in the meantime I have to figure out how to respond to a warning from Youtube. Apparently someone was upset by their personal information being made public in the video. According to the complaint I received,** privacy was violated at 0.09, 0:28, 0:51, and at 2:09. Though the Youtube note explaining is expansive, it isn't clear just how I can fix the issue.

This is a problem with many people I see who come from the liberal mindset.

Yes, you see this problem with people who come from the liberal mindset. Whether we get around to fleshing this out, who knows? But I appreciate the alert.

You are better than just a troll who makes weird troll videos to feed his vanity.

I would like to think that I am better than just a troll who makes weird troll videos to feed his vanity, but maybe I am not much better than that troll. I mean, here is a video, a dud, a stinker, a video that raises the problem you have seen (whatever it is) in people who come from the liberal mindset, and on top of that, the weird troll video has likely violated some poor person's vanity, er, privacy, so, I am not so sure I do not resemble that implicated 'troll' ...

Still, the issues are important to me, such as they are. Having highlighted the Fainting Spell that afflicted Dennis once Monical Pignotti was on hand to explain her disenchantment with Callahan's claims for the 5 Minute Cure and TFT and VT (on evidentiary grounds, as detailed in the thread referenced earlier), and having counselled Brant that he was not, after all, pure unvarnished evil like me (according to Dennis), and having underlined my contempt for vituperation delivered without associated discussion, I can and should compare my attempted goal with the goal actually reached. Did I achieve my aim? Should I worry about the liberal mindset? Should I worry about murky put-downs?

Probably the best think I can do is acknowledge error ("Mistakes were made"), express sorrow ("I am sorry you feel that way, Janet") and go replace the privacy-invasive images in the video with more appropriate images. Althought the images at the timecode in the Youtube warning do not actually correspond, I think the problem (derived from a leftist mindset) is the picture of a Fountainhead cover with Dennis's avatar inserted over Roark's face.

Now, Youtube privacy policy is extensive. It first of all tries to shield personal information so that no noisome or possibly dangerous people contact or harass a person identified in videos.

Of course, that the image planted over the fictional Roark's face is an avatar, a public avatar, and the Youtube warning tells me 'tags, avatar names and address information in which the individual is not named" are exempt from removal. This could mean that an avatar itself is exempt, especially when the avatar is not exactly correspondent to reality.

However, it is to be considered that Youtube is determined to protect privacy. If the video remains as is, it is possible that Youtube's review (after 48 hours) will find the the individual is uniquely identifiable by "image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank account number or

contact information (e.g., home address, email address)."

Finally, I have to consider whether Youtube, when deciding if my video has violated privacy and needs to be removed, will account for "public interest, newsworthiness, and consent."

I could ask for consent and wrap this up, I suppose.

Dennis, may I have your consent to use the following image mash-up in the video, please? If you say no, no, no, it violates my privacy, I will take down the video immediately, and then go to my room without dinner.

________________

**

Dear 88886137, This is to notify you that we have received a privacy

complaint from an individual regarding your content:

[Deleted: http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF6YciRUoz0 ]

The information reported as violating privacy is at 0_09,0_28, 0_51, 1_14,

2_06

We would like to give you an opportunity to review the content in question

and remove any personal information that may be used to uniquely identify

or contact the complainant.

You have 48 hours to take action on the complaint. If you remove the

alleged violation from the site within the 48 hours, the complaint filed

will then be closed.

If the potential privacy violation remains on the site after 48 hours, the

complaint will be reviewed by the YouTube Team and may be removed pursuant

to our Privacy Guidelines (http://www.youtube.c...vacy_guidelines).

For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely

identifiable by image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank

account number or contact information (e.g., home address, email address).

Examples that would not violate our privacy guidelines include gamer tags,

avatar names, and address information in which the individual is not named.

We also take public interest, newsworthiness, and consent into account when

determining if content should be removed for a privacy violation.

If the alleged violation is located within the video itself, you may have

to remove the video completely. If someone's full name or other personal

information is listed within the title, description, or tags of your video,

you can edit this by going to My Videos and clicking the Edit button on the

reported video.

Making a video private is not an appropriate method of editing, as the

status can be changed from private to public at any time. Because they can

be turned off at any time, annotations are also not considered an

acceptable solution.

We're committed to protecting our users and hope you understand the

importance of respecting others' privacy. When uploading videos in the

future, please remember not to post someone else's image or personal

information without their consent.

For more information, please review our Privacy Guidelines

http://www.youtube.c...delines

PS -- After spending time in my room without dinner thinking about what I have done, and the liberal mindset, I will revise the video so that it causes no more fainting spells or complaints, at least complaints that are articulated to Youtube. At OL, I always expect complaints. It's a problem I see coming from people who are in the non-liberal mindset, sadly.

I note that I received one note of support backchannel. The privacy-invasive Avatar+Roark mashup image, it is said, contains an image that may not actually be Dennis Hardin. We do not know who the image actually represents. The note included a link to a real picture of Dennis Hardin, a picture that invades his privacy deeply, while being posted at a public website celebrating the novel "The Living Image." This privacy-destroying image, then, may be the real Dennis Hardin, and the avatar I pasted on the fictional Roark face, that may be a fiction, too. Who knows? Who dares discover?

See: http://www.thelivingimage.com/theauthor.htm

PPS -- If the murky reference to mommy was made in reference to the late Marcia Damon (née Enwright), ouch. Oof, even. Here is a picture of me and my mommy in 1964, during a glamourous shopping trip.

My mother used me as a pack mule on her expeditions to downtown Vancouver, and also used the Electric Photographer to document her outfits and her spoils, as well as my socialist bondage.

I wonder if this is where the liberal mindset began to firm up. Hmmm. I will think about that in my room without dinner.

I may still be in bondage. Look at my face in the picture. Surely a glimmer of anticipation, incipient awareness of the Mindset firming up like wet plaster in my brain, of the next horror-show at Sweet Sixteen fashions. "Do you like this dress?" mummy would ask, repeatedly. I would answer Yes, Yes, Yes, anything to escape the torture. But then she would say "What was wrong with the first one?" -- surely a question no six-year-old should be tasked with.

Yes, that is where it all began, methinks.

Edited June 17, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

It's funny how you don't like criticism.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

As to your YouTube communication, my guess is that Dennis complained. That seems like the logical conclusion.

But getting away from the Scherk-Hardin feud (somehow that doesn't roll off the tongue like the Hatfields and the McCoys) and into the message, here is a picture that seems to reflect it in some twisted dark corner of my subconscious.

Don't ask me why because, for the life of me, I tried to figure it out before posting and my spirit just started moving into a Salvador Dali direction of pregnant questions with hints of sterile answers.

So if you ask, I'll have to say, "Damned if I know."

But there it is.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis is too old to play Howard.

--Brant

I'm too young to be old

[9thdoctor]

Oh well, win some, lose some ...

Loved The Fountainhead cover. How about one dedicated to Jabba? Last time I checked out the goings on at the SLOP trough there was some hilarious stuff with him arguing religion with and against his tiny band of fellow loons. His TV show theme music was from the Tchaikovsky 2nd Symphony, "I'm Lindsay Perigo and I'm dangerous", you've got to work that in. Or how about James Valliant's denunciation of Comrade Sonia, now there's a mine with untapped veins that are surely full of riches. It's on his Facebook page.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Somebody said backstage I was making an anti-gay statement with that picture.

Nope.

Here is a paragraph of my response.

I'm not anti-gay. Not even a sniff of anti-gay intention in posting that picture. It could have easily been a naked fat woman or a little dog humping a big one or anything else ridiculous in public.

I am so beyond collectivist thinking, this kind of PC stuff is starting to catch me by surprise.

Sometimes I think people want to control others on a specific issue because the ugliness is in their own hearts and they can't face it. I'm not saying this is the case in this case (it probably isn't), but I have found this to be a good rule of thumb in understanding why people are passionate about their finger-wagging.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone's interested, I riffed off William's theme of a little boy looking out on a gross world. I just went for the funny-bone in the jugular and showed another little boy looking out at a gross world.

I could have gone after the jugular pure and simple and said, "You're telling me that the gross part for the little boy is a good-looking mother shopping too much? Nah. That's not gross for a little boy. Little boys looked out at a gross world in Auschwitz. They do in Kony's world. They do in Syria. And so on... So stop feeling sorry for yourself."

But since the value on the table was jazzing up a petty feud to look like something more than just shaving and polishing a proboscis so the author can get a better bead on the bugs below, I went for humor. I feel sad when talent is used like that. I want to say, "Dude, you're looking down your nose at people as the theme of your efforts. Really? That's all you want to do? But you've got talent..."

It doesn't matter if a cow that moos louder than the herd was once a heifer looking out at a gross world. It's still a moo cow. And loud quirky mooing is not much of a distinction.

What if such a talented person decided not to be metaphorical cattle any longer?

Now that excites me.

But mooing?

Bleh...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Little boys seeing grossness in the world is one thing, little boys being grossed over by the world another. I was the former when I was a little boy wondering if a Jewish boy murdered by the Nazis might have been reborn in me--that little Jewish boy being the boy grossed over.

--Brant

[caroljane]

William,

That one was a dud.

Stinker.

You're trying too hard on the target people, trying too hard to position yourself as oh-so-superior, and totally missing the message.

Oh well, win some, lose some ...

I do not know if I should apologize to Dennis Hardin, but in the meantime I have to figure out how to respond to a warning from Youtube. Apparently someone was upset by their personal information being made public in the video. According to the complaint I received,** privacy was violated at 0.09, 0:28, 0:51, and at 2:09. Though the Youtube note explaining is expansive, it isn't clear just how I can fix the issue.

This is a problem with many people I see who come from the liberal mindset.

Yes, you see this problem with people who come from the liberal mindset. Whether we get around to fleshing this out, who knows? But I appreciate the alert.

You are better than just a troll who makes weird troll videos to feed his vanity.

I would like to think that I am better than just a troll who makes weird troll videos to feed his vanity, but maybe I am not much better than that troll. I mean, here is a video, a dud, a stinker, a video that raises the problem you have seen (whatever it is) in people who come from the liberal mindset, and on top of that, the weird troll video has likely violated some poor person's vanity, er, privacy, so, I am not so sure I do not resemble that implicated 'troll' ...

Still, the issues are important to me, such as they are. Having highlighted the Fainting Spell that afflicted Dennis once Monical Pignotti was on hand to explain her disenchantment with Callahan's claims for the 5 Minute Cure and TFT and VT (on evidentiary grounds, as detailed in the thread referenced earlier), and having counselled Brant that he was not, after all, pure unvarnished evil like me (according to Dennis), and having underlined my contempt for vituperation delivered without associated discussion, I can and should compare my attempted goal with the goal actually reached. Did I achieve my aim? Should I worry about the liberal mindset? Should I worry about murky put-downs?

Probably the best think I can do is acknowledge error ("Mistakes were made"), express sorrow ("I am sorry you feel that way, Janet") and go replace the privacy-invasive images in the video with more appropriate images. Althought the images at the timecode in the Youtube warning do not actually correspond, I think the problem (derived from a leftist mindset) is the picture of a Fountainhead cover with Dennis's avatar inserted over Roark's face.

Now, Youtube privacy policy is extensive. It first of all tries to shield personal information so that no noisome or possibly dangerous people contact or harass a person identified in videos.

Of course, that the image planted over the fictional Roark's face is an avatar, a public avatar, and the Youtube warning tells me 'tags, avatar names and address information in which the individual is not named" are exempt from removal. This could mean that an avatar itself is exempt, especially when the avatar is not exactly correspondent to reality.

However, it is to be considered that Youtube is determined to protect privacy. If the video remains as is, it is possible that Youtube's review (after 48 hours) will find the the individual is uniquely identifiable by "image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank account number or

contact information (e.g., home address, email address)."

Finally, I have to consider whether Youtube, when deciding if my video has violated privacy and needs to be removed, will account for "public interest, newsworthiness, and consent."

I could ask for consent and wrap this up, I suppose.

Dennis, may I have your consent to use the following image mash-up in the video, please? If you say no, no, no, it violates my privacy, I will take down the video immediately, and then go to my room without dinner.

________________

**

Dear 88886137, This is to notify you that we have received a privacy

complaint from an individual regarding your content:

[Deleted: http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF6YciRUoz0 ]

The information reported as violating privacy is at 0_09,0_28, 0_51, 1_14,

2_06

We would like to give you an opportunity to review the content in question

and remove any personal information that may be used to uniquely identify

or contact the complainant.

You have 48 hours to take action on the complaint. If you remove the

alleged violation from the site within the 48 hours, the complaint filed

will then be closed.

If the potential privacy violation remains on the site after 48 hours, the

complaint will be reviewed by the YouTube Team and may be removed pursuant

to our Privacy Guidelines (http://www.youtube.c...vacy_guidelines).

For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely

identifiable by image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank

account number or contact information (e.g., home address, email address).

Examples that would not violate our privacy guidelines include gamer tags,

avatar names, and address information in which the individual is not named.

We also take public interest, newsworthiness, and consent into account when

determining if content should be removed for a privacy violation.

If the alleged violation is located within the video itself, you may have

to remove the video completely. If someone's full name or other personal

information is listed within the title, description, or tags of your video,

you can edit this by going to My Videos and clicking the Edit button on the

reported video.

Making a video private is not an appropriate method of editing, as the

status can be changed from private to public at any time. Because they can

be turned off at any time, annotations are also not considered an

acceptable solution.

We're committed to protecting our users and hope you understand the

importance of respecting others' privacy. When uploading videos in the

future, please remember not to post someone else's image or personal

information without their consent.

For more information, please review our Privacy Guidelines

http://www.youtube.c...delines

PS -- After spending time in my room without dinner thinking about what I have done, and the liberal mindset, I will revise the video so that it causes no more fainting spells or complaints, at least complaints that are articulated to Youtube. At OL, I always expect complaints. It's a problem I see coming from people who are in the non-liberal mindset, sadly.

I note that I received one note of support backchannel. The privacy-invasive Avatar+Roark mashup image, it is said, contains an image that may not actually be Dennis Hardin. We do not know who the image actually represents. The note included a link to a real picture of Dennis Hardin, a picture that invades his privacy deeply, while being posted at a public website celebrating the novel "The Living Image." This privacy-destroying image, then, may be the real Dennis Hardin, and the avatar I pasted on the fictional Roark face, that may be a fiction, too. Who knows? Who dares discover?

See: http://www.thelivingimage.com/theauthor.htm

PPS -- If the murky reference to mommy was made in reference to the late Marcia Damon (née Enwright), ouch. Oof, even. Here is a picture of me and my mommy in 1964, during a glamourous shopping trip.

My mother used me as a pack mule on her expeditions to downtown Vancouver, and also used the Electric Photographer to document her outfits and her spoils, as well as my socialist bondage.

I wonder if this is where the liberal mindset began to firm up. Hmmm. I will think about that in my room without dinner.

I may still be in bondage. Look at my face in the picture. Surely a glimmer of anticipation, incipient awareness of the Mindset firming up like wet plaster in my brain, of the next horror-show at Sweet Sixteen fashions. "Do you like this dress?" mummy would ask, repeatedly. I would answer Yes, Yes, Yes, anything to escape the torture. But then she would say "What was wrong with the first one?" -- surely a question no six-year-old should be tasked with.

Yes, that is where it all began, methinks.

O, que la mere est belle!

O,que le fils est beau.

[william.scherk]

[media=]

I have eliminated the image that gave rise to privacy concerns, and added visuals that are non-denominational.

I deeply regret that Dennis brought my mother into this. Meanwhile, on Facebook, the same picture of dark lady shopping brought 72 'likes.' I will just have to settle for that, sob sob. Thinking of you, ma, the Electric Photograph, and the lessons I am learning here at OL.

Another night without dinner alone in my room, I think. Mooing like a cow.

Edited June 18, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

I am back in my barn after a delicious pasture session, and just saw a new piece of litter from a primate on Compost Pile......jts to be exact.

It occurs to me.a difference between us cows and said primate , on OL, is: we consume our ideas and afterwards masticate, and process in our two (2) stomacs. Primate merely swallows, and transmits. Must be painful.

[PDS]

William,

That one was a dud.

Stinker.

You're trying too hard on the target people, trying too hard to position yourself as oh-so-superior, and totally missing the message.

Oh well, win some, lose some ...

I do not know if I should apologize to Dennis Hardin, but in the meantime I have to figure out how to respond to a warning from Youtube. Apparently someone was upset by their personal information being made public in the video. According to the complaint I received,** privacy was violated at 0.09, 0:28, 0:51, and at 2:09. Though the Youtube note explaining is expansive, it isn't clear just how I can fix the issue.

This is a problem with many people I see who come from the liberal mindset.

Yes, you see this problem with people who come from the liberal mindset. Whether we get around to fleshing this out, who knows? But I appreciate the alert.

You are better than just a troll who makes weird troll videos to feed his vanity.

I would like to think that I am better than just a troll who makes weird troll videos to feed his vanity, but maybe I am not much better than that troll. I mean, here is a video, a dud, a stinker, a video that raises the problem you have seen (whatever it is) in people who come from the liberal mindset, and on top of that, the weird troll video has likely violated some poor person's vanity, er, privacy, so, I am not so sure I do not resemble that implicated 'troll' ...

Still, the issues are important to me, such as they are. Having highlighted the Fainting Spell that afflicted Dennis once Monical Pignotti was on hand to explain her disenchantment with Callahan's claims for the 5 Minute Cure and TFT and VT (on evidentiary grounds, as detailed in the thread referenced earlier), and having counselled Brant that he was not, after all, pure unvarnished evil like me (according to Dennis), and having underlined my contempt for vituperation delivered without associated discussion, I can and should compare my attempted goal with the goal actually reached. Did I achieve my aim? Should I worry about the liberal mindset? Should I worry about murky put-downs?

Probably the best think I can do is acknowledge error ("Mistakes were made"), express sorrow ("I am sorry you feel that way, Janet") and go replace the privacy-invasive images in the video with more appropriate images. Althought the images at the timecode in the Youtube warning do not actually correspond, I think the problem (derived from a leftist mindset) is the picture of a Fountainhead cover with Dennis's avatar inserted over Roark's face.

Now, Youtube privacy policy is extensive. It first of all tries to shield personal information so that no noisome or possibly dangerous people contact or harass a person identified in videos.

Of course, that the image planted over the fictional Roark's face is an avatar, a public avatar, and the Youtube warning tells me 'tags, avatar names and address information in which the individual is not named" are exempt from removal. This could mean that an avatar itself is exempt, especially when the avatar is not exactly correspondent to reality.

However, it is to be considered that Youtube is determined to protect privacy. If the video remains as is, it is possible that Youtube's review (after 48 hours) will find the the individual is uniquely identifiable by "image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank account number or

contact information (e.g., home address, email address)."

Finally, I have to consider whether Youtube, when deciding if my video has violated privacy and needs to be removed, will account for "public interest, newsworthiness, and consent."

I could ask for consent and wrap this up, I suppose.

Dennis, may I have your consent to use the following image mash-up in the video, please? If you say no, no, no, it violates my privacy, I will take down the video immediately, and then go to my room without dinner.

________________

**

Dear 88886137, This is to notify you that we have received a privacy

complaint from an individual regarding your content:

[Deleted: http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF6YciRUoz0 ]

The information reported as violating privacy is at 0_09,0_28, 0_51, 1_14,

2_06

We would like to give you an opportunity to review the content in question

and remove any personal information that may be used to uniquely identify

or contact the complainant.

You have 48 hours to take action on the complaint. If you remove the

alleged violation from the site within the 48 hours, the complaint filed

will then be closed.

If the potential privacy violation remains on the site after 48 hours, the

complaint will be reviewed by the YouTube Team and may be removed pursuant

to our Privacy Guidelines (http://www.youtube.c...vacy_guidelines).

For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely

identifiable by image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank

account number or contact information (e.g., home address, email address).

Examples that would not violate our privacy guidelines include gamer tags,

avatar names, and address information in which the individual is not named.

We also take public interest, newsworthiness, and consent into account when

determining if content should be removed for a privacy violation.

If the alleged violation is located within the video itself, you may have

to remove the video completely. If someone's full name or other personal

information is listed within the title, description, or tags of your video,

you can edit this by going to My Videos and clicking the Edit button on the

reported video.

Making a video private is not an appropriate method of editing, as the

status can be changed from private to public at any time. Because they can

be turned off at any time, annotations are also not considered an

acceptable solution.

We're committed to protecting our users and hope you understand the

importance of respecting others' privacy. When uploading videos in the

future, please remember not to post someone else's image or personal

information without their consent.

For more information, please review our Privacy Guidelines

http://www.youtube.c...delines

PS -- After spending time in my room without dinner thinking about what I have done, and the liberal mindset, I will revise the video so that it causes no more fainting spells or complaints, at least complaints that are articulated to Youtube. At OL, I always expect complaints. It's a problem I see coming from people who are in the non-liberal mindset, sadly.

I note that I received one note of support backchannel. The privacy-invasive Avatar+Roark mashup image, it is said, contains an image that may not actually be Dennis Hardin. We do not know who the image actually represents. The note included a link to a real picture of Dennis Hardin, a picture that invades his privacy deeply, while being posted at a public website celebrating the novel "The Living Image." This privacy-destroying image, then, may be the real Dennis Hardin, and the avatar I pasted on the fictional Roark face, that may be a fiction, too. Who knows? Who dares discover?

See: http://www.theliving...m/theauthor.htm

PPS -- If the murky reference to mommy was made in reference to the late Marcia Damon (née Enwright), ouch. Oof, even. Here is a picture of me and my mommy in 1964, during a glamourous shopping trip.

My mother used me as a pack mule on her expeditions to downtown Vancouver, and also used the Electric Photographer to document her outfits and her spoils, as well as my socialist bondage.

I wonder if this is where the liberal mindset began to firm up. Hmmm. I will think about that in my room without dinner.

I may still be in bondage. Look at my face in the picture. Surely a glimmer of anticipation, incipient awareness of the Mindset firming up like wet plaster in my brain, of the next horror-show at Sweet Sixteen fashions. "Do you like this dress?" mummy would ask, repeatedly. I would answer Yes, Yes, Yes, anything to escape the torture. But then she would say "What was wrong with the first one?" -- surely a question no six-year-old should be tasked with.

Yes, that is where it all began, methinks.

Is it just me, or do all of our mothers from the early 60's look like Elizabeth Taylor?

NIce penny loafers, WSS, but I would like to see a little more stylish bend near the ankle of your trousers. They are perhaps an inch too short in this photo. WSS.

[caroljane]

PDS, its just you.

My dear Ma looked more like Marjorie Main.

I wonder if WSS like me was not allowed to pick out own outfits until advanced puberty. Fess up Bill, did you don yon sweater of your own accord? It is in impeccable taste.

[Jonathan]

PDS, its just you.

My dear Ma looked more like Marjorie Main.

Eek!

Mine looked like a cross between Mariette Hartley and Lee Remick.

J

[william.scherk]

If anyone's interested, I riffed off William's theme of a little boy looking out on a gross world. I just went for the funny-bone in the jugular and showed another little boy looking out at a gross world.

I loved the picture of Gay Naturist Grandpa. I saw it earlier at Free Republic, in the context of a comment thread rant about the Castro district in San Francisco.

The last Pride Parade I attended in Vancouver had a contingent of naturists. Middle-aged if not elderly, with sun-hats, walking shoes, socks, watches, fanny-packs -- but nothing covering the genitals (this was also a big Topless day, of course, with many bared female breasts). My reaction to the waggling grandpas (yes, all those who marched under the Naturists banner were men) was similar to the young kid in the Castro pic.**

There was no theme 'of a little boy looking out on a gross world' intended. Dennis uttered his recondite "Does his mommy know?" remark, and I responded. Win some, lose some, as I said.

I could have gone after the jugular pure and simple and said, "You're telling me that the gross part for the little boy is a good-looking mother shopping too much? Nah. That's not gross for a little boy. Little boys looked out at a gross world in Auschwitz. They do in Kony's world. They do in Syria. And so on... So stop feeling sorry for yourself."

Michael, I am glad you said this (without saying it), for it is wrong. My fault you intuited a non-existent 'theme' but still wrong.

My plaints about mom were meant to be humourous ('pack mule'). I rather enjoyed the shopping, and mom in her finery. A trip downtown involved lunch at The White Lunch (a fave) and lots more. The Electric Photographer was also much fun.

So, no, I am not telling you that the gross part for the little boy (me) is a good-looking mother shopping too much, there was nothing gross about the world except for stupidity and violence from my six-year-old vantage. I apologize for being unclear and using the fine humour brush in my remarks.

Embedded in my remarks was a clue that I was kidding around: the wet socialist plaster setting in my mind, etc. No invidious comparison to Auschwitz or child soldiers was designed.

But since the value on the table was jazzing up a petty feud to look like something more than just shaving and polishing a proboscis so the author can get a better bead on the bugs below,

The value on the table (for you) was jazzing up a petty feud? That was also not intended.

I intended to illustrate Brant's "Bitch-slap" comment. I contrasted the tetchy remarks of Dennis to his earlier blowout on the 5 minute phobia thread -- the 'unvarnished evil' blurt.

Do I consider Dennis among the bugs below? Nope. The thread subject is interesting to me and actually led to doing some more research on Jonathan Haidt's work on morals and political stripe. I will post those comments later, and perhaps help to return the thread to its rails -- after having contributed to running it off the rails.

A petty feud between Hardin and Scherk would be a dire and uninteresting thing, I believe. If I have left the impression in your mind, Michael, that it is a feud, my mistake. I do not know how closely you followed argument in the 5 minute phobia thread, so I understand. I also understand that the comment I made was probably far too long and involved and suffused with a cheekiness that did not translate well.

To recap, my criticism of Thought Field Therapy was principled and on point. Dennis's reaction was over-the-top and off-point. His invocation of Ellsworth Toohey and unvarnished evul was hilarious. That said, my remarks and the video of my remarks in this thread may have missed their targets.

I went for humor. I feel sad when talent is used like that. I want to say, "Dude, you're looking down your nose at people as the theme of your efforts. Really? That's all you want to do? But you've got talent..."

I want to say 'huh?' Michael, if you grasped a theme of looking down my nose at people, my mistake. I want to say you may have missed the actual remarks and their intent. I want to say that this is not all I want to do.

It doesn't matter if a cow that moos louder than the herd was once a heifer looking out at a gross world. It's still a moo cow. And loud quirky mooing is not much of a distinction.

I want to say, "I need to unpack this sentence."

-- WSS was once a heifer looking out a gross world

-- now a cow, WSS moos louder than the herd

-- WSS is a cow, a moo cow

-- loud quirky mooing

Now it is unpacked, I want to put that mess back in its case. But, like Grandpa's waggly bits, it's out there and no repacking into the Speedo can undo the assumed damage.

What if such a talented person decided not to be metaphorical cattle any longer?

I want to say, "I never actually had decided to be a metaphorical cattle." I also want to ask myself, "If MSK can so miss my points, what can I do to correct his misapprehensions?"

To that unposed question, I have no answer yet.

However, this particular remark deserves a response:

William,

It's funny how you don't like criticism.

Is the premise true, that I do not like criticism? No, not really, but I may be biased or too wrapped up in amour propre to admit it.

More importantly, I do think, is responding to and using criticism. Addressing criticism, whether I or you or anyone likes it or not, that is important.

So, to MSK's criticism. The original complaint was that the video was a stinker and a dud. Fair enough. I pulled it down from Youtube (not because of the bogus privacy concerns). I thought about the criticism.

Some of MSK's remarks I did consider closely, some I did not:

-- I am trying too hard on the target people

-- I am trying too hard to position myself as oh-so-superior

This could be true. An over-eager effort to target and position (as viewed from MSK's POV) can lead to missed messages. The message can be entirely overlooked because of problems in delivery.

Is this a problem (over-energetic targetting/missed messages) with many people MSK sees coming from 'the liberal mindset'? Yes.

Now, Michaels says this is honest feedback from a friendly voice, and that I am starting to find a glimmer of a unique voice of my own. That is indeed encouraging. I am better than just a troll.

*************************

In the end, the puzzle remains from the TFT thread: if few here have actually done the work to understand both the claims/evidence and the debate over TFT/5 Minute Phobia Cure, how can they have such firm opinions on its value? Why does their intuition trump the actual scientific labours to prove TFT effectiveness?

If we cannot reach agreed-upon facts or methods for determining facts, why not? We all adhere to reason as our best and most precious tool. What, ultimately, is at issue? Reason, facts, evidence? Personalities, putdowns, snarkfests?

Anyway, in the end, the thread is derailed. I will do my best to put it back on track, leaving aside the Scherk-Hardin feud.

What tweaked my interest (besides Hardin's misspelling of Jonathan Haidt's name) was this notion of All or Nothing. That a moral, principled case can and should be made for laissez-faire, without reference to scriptures or consequentialism, I think we can all agree. But Dennis's point (among many) seemed to be that making a non-moral case for capitalism is both wrong and unnecessary. A yawn.

On this point, I tend to agree more with our glamourous Australian, and with Brant:

[A] moral defense of self-interested action is necessary for us to win, but

1) necessary =/= sufficient,

2) the necessity of a moral defense of self-interested action does not preclude the usefulness of other defenses of market economics, and

3) as stated before, consequentialist arguments and natural rights arguments are fundamentally compatible via the logic I previously explained.

PS to Carol: Mom picked my outfits. She had the cash. Luckily I passed for a normal child most of the time. The only time I resisted mom's outfit choices for me was over The Hand-me-down Cowboy Boots. I refused to wear them to school (I said, "We are not allowed"). That is another story, of madness, nervous breakdowns, parental bondage, yadda yadda.

___________

** Similar, but not identical. I was not offended or disgusted, and actually enjoyed the Wagglers appearing right behind our Mayor (on inline skates) and in front of the Scotiabank float featuring fully-packed Speedos and attached dancers. The only contingent in the Parade that raised my ire was the collection of 9/11 Truthers (also on inline roller skates). I actually told the guy who jammed a brochure at me to Fuck Off Completely. Their creepy authoritarianism marred my appreciation of the Anything Goes atmosphere and I will not go to another Pride Parade they are invited to.

Edited June 20, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

O, tell a kid of a self-described very, very fru@al mama about pre-owned outfits. List to my tale of a perfectly fine real Scots kilt, via cousins Beverly, Betty and Patsy, and its not so fine waist strap, sawed by senility. Said strap snapped, said kilt dropped, as I stood to answer a question in class-- luckily it was a time of slips - but I did not feel so lucky antan.

[william.scherk]

Here is some Haidt straight up, in conversation with Will Wilkinson.

Click image to reach the Bloggingheads page featuring the raging socialist (by OL standards) and the Objectivish.

Fresh insights via Moral Psychology for the discussion introduced at the top of this thread?

60 minutes, as Haidt says, much more depth than a scholarly article. Just enough context for a yawn, perhaps. Talks about his research on the morality of dog-eating in Brazil and Pennsylvania at 12:08.

Edited June 21, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

PDS, its just you.

My dear Ma looked more like Marjorie Main.

Eek!

Mine looked like a cross between Mariette Hartley and Lee Remick.

J

But my dad looked a bit like Elvis, Presley., not Costello.