Forgiveness

[moralist]

Kacy,

Greg describes himself as a fundamentalist.

Yes... in the mundane pragmatic sense that I acknowledge there are basic fundamental moral principles which are in everyone's own best interest to live by. And everyone is perfectly free to choose either to accept or to reject them, just as everyone will get the consequences they deserve as the result of their choice.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not looking to control Greg.

RB,

This is what makes discussing things extremely tiresome with you. I never said you were looking to control Greg. But you yap on and on as if I did.

I said you don't trust readers to think for themselves, so you want to tar and feather Greg. That way they won't even hear his message. You're just thinking for them, because Greg is dangerous to them, you know.

You don't want to control Greg. You want to control them. Other people.

Your thing is all about power and I believe you think Greg is dangerous because he interferes with your control of them, the other people, the readers.

Greg's thing is all about not submitting to power, so the danger is they might like the idea of independence from being controlled and be inspired by his example, even if they don't agree with him on anything else or take the same path he did.

It's all about outcomes on others to power people, never about self-realization.

That's where your collectivism (we, the forum, the peers, the group, "ours all") comes from. Controlling others by scapegoating someone in the name of the collective.

You don't want to control Greg. You want to scapegoat him and pretend the collective is doing it while you are their spokesman. Which is a traditional path to power and controlling the collective.

I hope that's clear now.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

Michael,

I have some thoughts on that, but I don't know how I can respond in a way that will survive moderation. If you give me some rules or guidelines for posting I can abide by them, but I'm flying in the dark at the moment.

[Brant Gaede]

Up to here, OK. This is all an opinion. It slightly misrepresents what I have read Greg say, but I can see how the misunderstanding could occur.

I don't know who the danger is to, though, but that's still a personal opinion.

Maybe this poster thinks Greg is a danger is to himself (the poster)? Or Greg is a danger to those this poster wants to control? Questions, questions, questions... But those are my questions. Basically, my opinion.

I think this poster doesn't trust readers to think for themselves.

Michael,

I'm not looking to control Greg. In fact, I'm convinced Greg is in a mental place where he can no longer be influenced by anything we say to him. You seem to be viewing this as a strength of character - being immune to any "control" behavior - but I view Greg's unplugging of himself from external logic sources as a serious long-term liability. The way I put it to SB privately is Greg has shut off the learning parts of his brain so his ideas are no longer being checked or reigned in by any objective reality. The callous lack of empathy he displays toward victims of attacks, combined with his puzzling inability to recognize the randomness and vicissitudes in all of our lives, should be setting off tripwires and lighting up the intuitive defenses in our monkey brains like a Christmas tree. Something is not *right* here, and I think that's what is causing the harsh responses in this forum, not any kind of resentment. It's like a case of someone hearing voices from God; the fact that the voices haven't suggested harming anyone is little consolation when confronted with a decision of whether to trust such a person.

Greg is interesting for the mental-moral fortress he has built around and/or within himself. That's worthy of thinking about for it does have some good transferable consequences that don't need his irrational foundation. As for the bad stuff, it's so easy to see isn't it time to move on?

--Brant

[moralist]

Hey what happened? I wrote two extensive posts yesterday and they both aren't here today. I know they weren't moderated because there wasn't anything offensive in them. (sigh...) I'll do them again today after work.

Greg

[PDS]

But... but... but... Greg!

You are dangerous!

Michael

No, just annoying.

[PDS]

Hey what happened? I wrote two extensive posts yesterday and they both aren't here today. I know they weren't moderated because there wasn't anything offensive in them. (sigh...) I'll do them again today after work.

Greg

Greg:

Your choices made them disappear because nothing random ever happens. You should have guarded against this possibility and not allow evil thoughts to enter your head. Then your posts will no longer disappear.

You're welcome.

[KacyRay]

@ PDS - LOL!

@ Greg - I'm sorry to hear that your posts disappeared. That's so infuriating. That's why, when I write long posts, I always type them onto a Word document until I see them posted. I can't tell you how many times I saw hours of typing vanish away before I developed that habit.

Also, as a fail-safe, I always copy the text before I hit the "send" button. That doesn't help if your computer crashes, but doing that simple thing has saved my posts more times than I can count.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know they weren't moderated because there wasn't anything offensive in them.

Greg,

Individual posts are not moderated on OL. That only occurs when a poster has posting restrictions.

If something gets posted that is super-offensive, I usually throw a fit and throw it in the Garbage Pile.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I have some thoughts on that, but I don't know how I can respond in a way that will survive moderation. If you give me some rules or guidelines for posting I can abide by them, but I'm flying in the dark at the moment.

RB,

Sure.

I'll discuss this in public.

Rule No. 1 - Do not insult the owner of the site.

Rule No. 2 - Do not piss on the owner of the site.

Rule No. 3 - Do not play power games with the owner of the site.

I don't care if you think the owner of the site deserves it or not. I don't care what your feelings about justice are. I don't care if you think I insulted you first. Frankly, when it comes to the good of this forum, I don't care what you think at all.

If you feel you just have to do your pissing, if the urge is just too strong to contain, there's a huge Internet out there. Do it there.

Not in my house.

You do not run OL. Period.

There are a few other rules, but I don't want to confuse you as I believe this will be difficult for you. I'm not being snarky here. I mean this literally. I think you have developed such an ingrained set of bad habits of insulting off the cuff in your stalking of Kacy (and possibly some other choices you made and regularly act on), you simply do not know how to do it differently.

If you can commit to following those simple rules (or at least trying to follow them), I will release the restriction.

(Note to readers: This does not mean people can't disagree with me or even clash at times. It's obvious lots of people do. So my authoritarian tone here is directed at one person only, not at everybody. This particular case developed in an ugly direction detrimental to OL and I arrested it. That's what traffic cops do. )

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

Rules number 1 and 2 are straightforward (in fact they're the same rule) and I have no issue abiding by them. Your house, your rules, as you've made abundantly clear.

Rule number 3 is the real head-scratcher for me because, as much as I'd like to shake hands and be done with the whole thing, what constitutes a "power game" remains so ill-defined in this context that I can't offer a good-faith commitment unless there is some clarification of what I'm binding myself to.

For example,

Is trying to influence somebody's opinion a "power game"?

Is questioning a tenet of Objectivism a "power game"?

It's just not clear to me at what point eliciting a response or reaction becomes "power game" behavior. I will agree to any given point you specify, but I just don't know what that point is right now.

[Brant Gaede]

Rule No. 1 - Do not insult the owner of the site.

Rule No. 2 - Do not piss on the owner of the site.

Rule No. 3 - Do not play power games with the owner of the site.

Darn!

And I was having so much fun.

--Brant

while it lasted

[Robert Baratheon]

I ask a clarifying question and my comment gets sent to purgatory?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rules number 1 and 2 are straightforward (in fact they're the same rule) and I have no issue abiding by them. Your house, your rules, as you've made abundantly clear.

Rule number 3 is the real head-scratcher for me because, as much as I'd like to shake hands and be done with the whole thing, what constitutes a "power game" remains so ill-defined in this context that I can't offer a good-faith commitment unless there is some clarification of what I'm binding myself to.

For example,

Is trying to influence somebody's opinion a "power game"?

Is questioning a tenet of Objectivism a "power game"?

It's just not clear to me at what point eliciting a response or reaction becomes "power game" behavior. I will agree to any given point you specify, but I just don't know what that point is right now.

RB,

You're going to have to figure that one out on your own.

I just don't have the time to babysit you or think for you.

In other words, this condition is not up for debate, technicalities, gaming, nothing. If you can't figure it out, I can't help you.

I ask a clarifying question and my comment gets sent to purgatory?

But this works as an example. This is exactly the kind of crap I am talking about.

I just walked in the door and turned the computer on. Look what I see. Just look at this crap.

People on moderation fall way low on my priority scale. I get around to them when I get around to them. You have been privileged because sometimes it takes me days.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rule No. 1 - Do not insult the owner of the site.

Rule No. 2 - Do not piss on the owner of the site.

Rule No. 3 - Do not play power games with the owner of the site.

Darn!

And I was having so much fun.

--Brant

while it lasted

Brant,

You are pre-forgiven for anything.

I play favorites.

Michael

[moralist]

I know they weren't moderated because there wasn't anything offensive in them.

Greg,

Individual posts are not moderated on OL. That only occurs when a poster has posting restrictions.

If something gets posted that is super-offensive, I usually throw a fit and throw it in the Garbage Pile.

Michael

Thanks Michael. I knew it wasn't anything you did as its happened before. I repeat myself so much it almost doesn't matter.

Greg

[moralist]

I want you to realize that we are discussing personal assaults. That is the topic. I'll be happy to address assaults on groups in another post so that this issue remains clear and easy to understand. Your agreement is not necessary for that. Just staying on the topic without clouding it by adding other situations is good enough.

If you believe there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault, then you believe that all assaults are, to some degree, provoked.

Not provoked.

Enabled.

People who do evil are opportunistic. And if you, through your own oblivious unawareness of your surroundings, offer them an opportunity (as in a knockout), they will certainly pick easy low hanging fruit. So it is your own personal responsibility not to offer evil people the opportunity to do you harm. Just as it is not good for them to be given an opportunity to do evil, it's not good for you to give it to them. Notice that YOU are the controlling factor since it is already a given that they are looking for an opportunity and will take whatever they are given.

Take note that I am not condoning evil. That's already a given. I'm talking about YOUR power to prevent evil from occurring through being aware. Evil people give off all sorts of signals as to their intentions, and if you are aware, you can read them.

I already understand that you don't agree with this view, and that's fine. I'm only stating it to make my view clear, because so many here have been speaking on my behalf as if they were me.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Rules number 1 and 2 are straightforward (in fact they're the same rule) and I have no issue abiding by them. Your house, your rules, as you've made abundantly clear.

Rule number 3 is the real head-scratcher for me because, as much as I'd like to shake hands and be done with the whole thing, what constitutes a "power game" remains so ill-defined in this context that I can't offer a good-faith commitment unless there is some clarification of what I'm binding myself to.

For example,

Is trying to influence somebody's opinion a "power game"?

Is questioning a tenet of Objectivism a "power game"?

It's just not clear to me at what point eliciting a response or reaction becomes "power game" behavior. I will agree to any given point you specify, but I just don't know what that point is right now.

Well, this is playing a "power game," Robert. You're trying to push it back on Michael instead of not. Might as well be arm wrestling, only he's not joining you at that table. More generally, most of what you were on about with Kacy seems to be of the same ilk only considerably worse. You treated him like you were field-dressing a feral hog.

--Brant

[moralist]

@ PDS - LOL!

@ Greg - I'm sorry to hear that your posts disappeared. That's so infuriating. That's why, when I write long posts, I always type them onto a Word document until I see them posted. I can't tell you how many times I saw hours of typing vanish away before I developed that habit.

No problem, Kacy.

It just gives me another opportunity to refine the description of my view.

Greg

[moralist]

To take one example, I wouldn't allow Greg to babysit my children, and if you would be comfortable doing so, I'm wondering why your emotional-intelligence sirens aren't going off, as ours all are.

The spawn of a government lawyer... now that's scary.

Greg

[moralist]

I can't believe I have to point this out, but this statement is so far removed from reality that I can't believe it has been uttered. First of all, it's demonstratably false. Do you realize how easily you could have been in the WTC on 9-11? Or a passenger on one of the planes? Or a pilot on one of them? The only thing your awareness would have gotten you is that you'd have been keenly aware that you were about to die.

I especially wanted to address this idea because you had shifted the topic from a personal assault to an assault on a group.

I've stated more than once here that it is easy to predict how a group of particles will behave, but impossible to predict what one particle will do. In a like manner, we give up our freedom of personal autonomous action when we choose to become part of a group. For by becoming part of a group we share the same fate as the group. Now this double edged principle can either work in our favor... or it can work against us.

Personally, this is why I generally tend to avoid large groups, and live in a rural area instead of in a city.

And this is why my comments pertained to personal assaults, because there is where you have the most freedom of individual spontaneous action, as well as the most personal control over the outcome.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

@ PDS - LOL!

@ Greg - I'm sorry to hear that your posts disappeared. That's so infuriating. That's why, when I write long posts, I always type them onto a Word document until I see them posted. I can't tell you how many times I saw hours of typing vanish away before I developed that habit.

No problem, Kacy.

It just gives me another opportunity to refine the description of my view.

Greg

And in fewer words?

--Brant

[moralist]

@ PDS - LOL!

@ Greg - I'm sorry to hear that your posts disappeared. That's so infuriating. That's why, when I write long posts, I always type them onto a Word document until I see them posted. I can't tell you how many times I saw hours of typing vanish away before I developed that habit.

No problem, Kacy.

It just gives me another opportunity to refine the description of my view.

Greg

And in fewer words?

--Brant

I actually do strive to be more concise... but that becomes complicated by having to constantly backtrack to undo the claims by others of what my view is.

When I do work for clients, I let them know up front that the goal to shoot for is to do everything only once. And if they are not clear on communicating exactly what they want, that can triple the cost of the job... because I nave to do it the first time... then undo it... and then redo it all over again.

Greg

[Serapis Bey]

Well, this is playing a "power game," Robert. You're trying to push it back on Michael instead of not. Might as well be arm wrestling, only he's not joining you at that table. More generally, most of what you were on about with Kacy seems to be of the same ilk only considerably worse. You treated him like you were field-dressing a feral hog.

Hey, cut RB some slack. Somebody needs to do the dirty work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugdpjKVH3EQ

p.s. asking = pushing?

[moralist]

Hey what happened? I wrote two extensive posts yesterday and they both aren't here today. I know they weren't moderated because there wasn't anything offensive in them. (sigh...) I'll do them again today after work.

Greg

Greg:

Your choices made them disappear because nothing random ever happens. You should have guarded against this possibility and not allow evil thoughts to enter your head. Then your posts will no longer disappear.

You're welcome.

And thank you...

...because you're right.

Our lives have meaning and purpose. Everything happens for a reason, and just because we don't comprehend the reason does not mean that there isn't a reason.

Evil thoughts don't enter into this because it's solely a matter of our awareness.

Greg