The all-too-aptly-named "Solopassion"


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dirk.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm! That escaped me. (btw - Welcome to OL.)

I admit to having a bit of fun recently with SLOP as an acronym, and it seems to fit your observation... er... ahem...

Never mind...

:D

If you haven't followed the lampoons, we have been having a ball with these people on a thread called "Announcing yet another new Objectivist website (satire)." The trick to good satire is that it has to be based on reality.

(One more shameless plug chalked up...)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dirk, creating humour is an art. I'm not much of an artist. But I sure do appreciate the fine lines and simplicity of a great work. Damn that was funny!

Welcome. What do you do for an encore?

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

>Welcome. What do you do for an encore?

Hmmm. Judging by her latest bug-eyed public wig-out, how about Diana Psych-o? (for sticklers, pronounce it kinda like Sid the Sloth in "Ice Age")

As to whether she and Linz are destined to be pals for life, let's hear Diana's frankly curious views on homosexuality one more time:

"I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral."

"Suboptimal", wink, wink. Kinda beautiful payback, poor "unfortunates" like Linz now having to be BFF with that. Actually, forget my first suggestion. Regina Firehammer, anyone? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is homosexuality unfortunate and suboptimal? Unfortunate to whom? The homosexuals, or her? It's certainly suboptimal when they deny their sexuality and marry the opposite sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Rand stated that there were no innate ideas. Hsieh holds that homosexuality cannot be innate because Rand said so. Therefore it must be learned.

Apparently, to her heterosexuality is innate for whatever reason.

Thus, she has no other choice except to conclude that homosexuality is "unfortunate and suboptimal." However, she states that once homosexuality is irreversible, it's OK. The problem is that the homosexual learned it all wrong as a kid and damaged himself.

How's that for a premise that needs checking?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of learning homosexuality I mentioned are words directly from the horse's mouth (Hsieh's). You have to conclude this, but it is relatively simple: if homosexuality is impossible to be innate for her and it becomes (archaic spelling and all) "engrained in a person's childhood psychology," obviously it is learned - thus for her, homosexuality is "unfortunate and suboptimal."

I also conclude from these words that if a kid learns something irreversible that is "unfortunate and suboptimal," he somehow got it wrong and damaged himself (irrespective of degree). As a booby-prize, she claims this damage is not immoral and a loving relationship is possible.

Here are her very own iddy biddy words to this effect:

As for an innate compulsions, that's simply impossible. A person would have to have an innate idea of property to have an innate compulsion to steal. I do not believe that homosexuality is innate, but I strongly suspect that it is too engrained in a person's childhood psychology to change in most cases. I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral.

Sounds like a closet hetero supremacist to me. I repeat: How's that for a premise that needs checking?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

M Kelly:

Sounds like a closet hetero supremacist to me. I repeat: How's that for a premise that needs checking?

Totally. Henceforth let her be known as Ms Regina Firehammer aka Diana "Homos-are-unfortunate-and-suboptimal" Hseih.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again Diana has latched onto a simplistic idea and maneuvered it to a false conclusion. She is a master of wrongheadedness. Orthodoxy has also come to have a great deal of appeal to her, so it is not surprising that her imagination is crippled when it comes to dealing with a tradition-loaded subject such as homosexuality.

It has been widely observed that Diana has an insatiable appetite for being the center of attention. Perhaps this also makes homosexuals suboptimal since they do not hunger for her sexually. By her Hsiehcological evaluation, this makes homosexuals suboptimal.

It most certainly is not known that homosexuality is an idea that people somehow get when they are young. How can she even seriously consider that it is? First, it does not even operate in one's mind as an idea. If it is not, then any simple argument that it would have to be an innate idea cannot follow. To justify describing it as unfortunate and suboptimal requires a value argument in addition. Some or many people are probably homosexual by virtue of their biochemical attributes. This has nothing to do with an innate idea any more than the fact that some people are heterosexual is the result of an innate idea. It is very reasonable to believe that heterosexuals are the result of their biochemical attributes also.

If one's sexuality is substantially attributable to one's biochemistry, then it is also reasonable to suspect that some people may have biochemistries that are sufficiently intermediate in nature that they can be attracted to both sexes. These people may be bisexual and again, this is not due to their claiming that they have an innate idea. They may be in a greater position to exercise choice in the issue of who they will have sex with and they may develop ideas on this choice, but these ideas are not innate either.

This blogger certainly has an extreme Hsiehcology. She is perhaps Objectivism's ultimate wrongheaded prolemicist. Incredibly, she is admired by far more people than my benevolent mind can fathom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles:

She (Hsieh) is perhaps Objectivism's ultimate wrongheaded polemicist.

Well said. Consider this: What could be a more priceless example of the very "weasel-worded academese" that so outrages Perigo than her:

"I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral."

It just doesn't GET any weaselier than that. Ironically, it was Chris Sciabarra who saw straight through Hsieh's mealy-mouthed euphemising, and amazingly is getting condemned for calling exactly as he - and anyone else who's got half a brain and an ounce of self-respect - sees it.

Perigo on the other hand, seems to have suddenly lost all his self-proclaimed "KASS". Why, he is going to politely "disagree", and let's all look the other way, tiptoe round the teacups and say no more about it shall we? One fears this little episode shows the true measure of the man. If Chris Sciabarra makes a few personal remarks about him in a private email, why that's a terrible moral crime that needs to be denounced ad nauseum throughout the halls of Objectivism. But should Hsieh casually disparage all homosexuals - is anyone mealy-mouthed enough to to call her description complimentary? - does Perigo have the cojones to stand up to it? No, he just mutters that he "disagrees" and then goes just as weasel-wordy as Hsieh as he tries to disagree with Chris's frank, no-nonsense, spade-is-a-spade assessment. What could be less 'KASS' than this display of utter limp-dickness?

For contrast, imagine the howling if someone on the shitlist like Joseph Rowlands or Barbara Branden or Michael Kelly had said it (not that they would dream of doing so!). We'd never hear the end of it. As Joseph Rowlands recently remarked, it's pretty obvious where Perigo's real priorities in life lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What could be less 'KASS' than this display of utter limp-dickness?"

Good point, Dirk, but let's not be too loud about it. I kind of like the idea that Hsieh has tamed Perigo. Maybe a few months as a deferential eunuch in the House of Hsiehame will be the first step toward his becoming a grown-up.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathon:

>Maybe a few months as a deferential eunuch in the House of Hsiehame will be the first step toward his becoming a grown-up.

Hee hee. "Deferential eunuch" sums up Perigo's stance nicely. However, I fear you are too optimistic. I can also see this is just another timebomb set a-tickin'...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> priceless example of..."weasel-worded academese"..."I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral."

Dirk, I'm not used to defending Diana :-), but I have to disagree with you on this: I'm not arguing the position, but she's holding two separate positions, and that's what the word 'but' indicates in English grammar.

One is apparently that it's better to be born (become?) hetero-sexual as nature and evolution intended (You "fit better" both physically and into a society hostile to sexual variation). The other is saying that it's not immoral to be gay.

Those two positions do not logically contradict each other (and Chris was wrong to presume dishonesty or that she sneakily believes h. is immoral...that is not in evidence in her statement).

An analogy: Suppose you were born without some physical capacity or color-blind (or something-I don't have a perfect analogy). That would be unfortunate to some degree or other or less than optimal. But you can be fully fulfilled, successful, achieve happines...be moral..without it.

Dirk, MSK, Charles and others-->

I am an opponent of Diana's on many things...including many aspects of how she judges people...but there are several things it is important to do in dealing with intellectual adversaries:

(1) Don't oversimplify or 'strawman' their positions

(2) Don't indulge in ad hominem, character assassination, or name calling...even if they do.

(3) Don't jump to moral condemnation or overstated character evaluations prior to hard and thorough evidence that honest error is totally impossible....even if they do.

(4) Just go on the evidence in people's statements. Do not read conspiracy theories or ulterior meanings or hidden motives into people's statements.

I've seen people on this list and on RoR who are outraged when their opponents do 1, 2, 3, or 4. Then they turn around and do the same things themselves toward -their- opponents.

Having now read and outlined her piece on Chris, I have started posting questions and gotten responses from her and her defenders. I have not assumed evil on their part and vice-versa in the discussion and it has been polite and civil....so far!

Even though absolutely no agreement has been achieved on anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PHIL,

Is there more to the quote attributed to Ms Hsieh that what you stated which is the same as I have read elsewhere because I have a problem with what you said above.

I will not argue that one part of the statement does not contradict the other however I can't see where you are getting the context of her message concerning the first part as being the following:

One is apparently that it's better to be born (become?) hetero-sexual as nature and evolution intended (You "fit better" both physically and into a society hostile to sexual variation). The other is saying that it's not immoral to be gay.

Where do you derive this? Is this based on something else she said?

When one makes a statement that they regard "homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal", then is there any real stretech to believe they also regard the homosexual as unfortunate and suboptimal. I don't know about your world, but in mine anyone who considered me as suboptimal would not be in consideration for a Christmas Card this year.

L W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, you say that one of Hseih's positions is that "it's better to be born (become?) hetero-sexual as nature and evolution intended." But if it's true that approximately 10% of any population is and alway has been homosexual, surely one could conclude that that's precisely what nature and evolution intended -- that it's "natural" that a certain percentage of the population be homosexual. .(Although "intended" is a dubious word to use in this context.)

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip, I agree with the part of your post that it is counter productive to engage in the four topics you posted.

I'm new to this board and the online objectivist community, and I don't know any of the players involved and have never read anything by Hsieh or Chris, but I went to solo passion to read the article by ms. hsieh, and I can see no value she could obtain by posting that article. Even if everything in the article is true and all of the claims are valid, it is still a piece of trash. From the tone and the content of her article she seems to be a very sour souled person. Someone I would never want to have any interaction with whatsoever. I am not sure how it works in academia but in the real world (except in politics) such a person would be ostracized. Criticizing someone's work is fair, but attacking them personally is so low I wouldn't even do such a thing to my worst enemy. How can anyone ever trust her again.

What was the point of the article besides attempted assasination. Objectivism is about the producer not the destroyer.

Dustan Costine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

I appreciate the voice of civility, but this case involving some crummy little people went way over the top.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HONOR OF CHRIS SCIABARRA AS IF IT WERE PROPER TO QUESTION IT.

Dayaamm!

The points you raised:

I stated what I believed about the homosexuality issue using the words - in context - from the horse's mouth. Hsieh thinks homosexuality is learned. That makes her a hetero supremacist. How to evaluate that is up to each person. I personally have no other opinion. I certainly can see a message between the lines that gives others pause, though.

Let me address your numbered points:

1. I don't know what you mean about strawman in this case. I read the article as did several here. I have seen no oversimplifications and I have seen no inaccuracies. The article, on the other hand, was a straw dungeon full of straw men. You act like answering this garbage is required because it is valid. It is not valid. It is an attempted character assassination. It is a smear. I will not stand for it. I will not treat it as respectable.

2. The only name-calling I encourage in OL is lampooning done with talent. Out of anger and contempt, we started using satirical names in serious writing. Then, Roger, I and others had an e-mail "whispering campaign" amongst ourselves and decided that we were diluting the effectiveness of both the humor and arguments by combining them, so we made the proper adaptations - lampoons went to humor and a serious tone was adopted for arguments. I'll bet you didn't even know about that particular "whispering campaign," did you?

Between posters on OL, acrimony is nipped in the bud the moment it erupts. One thing you should be aware of. I hold the people who perpetrated this mess in total contempt. I have read enough of their works (all of them) to know what and how they think. I have looked at their lives. They are mediocre underachievers who try to take down famous people who have achieved something in the world.

Once again, you sound like they deserve respect. They don't. They are crummy little people who give Objectivism a bad name. They don't produce much anything of value.

3. That piece of trash that Hsieh wrote is really the only thorough "evidence" anybody needs, but I have a wider perspective. I was one of the insiders at one time (not with Hsieh or Valliant, though). I can tell you with absolute certainty that the integrity level in the wings is disgusting. I might write about that one day - and believe me, I have plenty of "evidence" too if I ever need to use it.

4. Conspiracy theory? Ha! Hsieh is a stoolie who sang like a canary in public, broke the law (as I understand it) to do so, and called for people to send her their private correspondence with Sciabarra. Lemme tell ya something, dude, that I learned in the streets. A stoolie who sings in public sings in private. There ain't no conspiracy there. It's the nature of the canary to sing.

Hsieh cannot be trusted to keep any confidence whatsoever. Another word for stoolie is "tattle-tale." I have no doubt that any correspondence involving Sciabarra sent to her will end up in other places, including ARI. Let those who decide to send her stuff ponder the consequences of that.

You know, reading this last post of yours brought the phrase, "Peace in our time" running through my mind. I like you. A lot. So please don't take this to mean that I am saying you are the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain. But your argument in this case shows the same blindness.

You make your own choices. You go and debate these intellectual parasites and give them some minimal image of respectability. If you find value in that, go for it. You give them audience so they can keep calling Chris Sciabarra a liar and scumbag. That is the practical result.

I make my choices too. I stand by my friend, Chris Sciabarra. I admire him tremendously - hell, I love that guy. He is a person with one of the finest moral characters I have the honor of knowing. He is highly competent. He is honored throughout the world for his achievements. What was done against him was unconscionable spite.

And I am not done with his defense - not by a long shot.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil, you say that one of Hseih's positions is that "it's better to be born (become?) hetero-sexual as nature and evolution intended." But if it's true that approximately 10% of any population is and alway has been homosexual, surely one could conclude that that's precisely what nature and evolution intended -- that it's "natural" that a certain percentage of the population be homosexual. .(Although "intended" is a dubious word to use in this context.)

Barbara

Phillip was trying to better explain what Ms. hsieh was saying in the first part of her statement: "I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal". I think the best word that could be used instead of unfortunate (which I think is a horrible word because it implies fortune and luck) is unsuitable. That would take care of the problems of unfortunate and include suboptimal. The statement "I think homosexuality is unsuitable, but but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral." is alot less contradictory and less negative. I would also solve the problem of natural, because something that is only represented by 10% of a species could be considered unsuitable.

Dustan

Edit: Upon further consideration I am revoking my above statement. Any action that is moral cannot be also unsuitable. Therefore the original statement by ms. Hsieh is a contradiction no matter how you improve the wording.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, you wrote that “there are several things it is important to do in dealing with intellectual adversaries:

“(1) Don't oversimplify or 'strawman' their positions

"(2) Don't indulge in ad hominem, character assassination, or name calling...even if they do.

"(3) Don't jump to moral condemnation or overstated character evaluations prior to hard and thorough evidence that honest error is totally impossible....even if they do.

"(4) Just go on the evidence in people's statements. Do not read conspiracy theories or ulterior meanings or hidden motives into people's statements.

“I've seen people on this list and on RoR who are outraged when their opponents do 1, 2, 3, or 4. Then they turn around and do the same things themselves toward -their- opponents.”

As you know, Phil, I argued long and hard on the old Solo for precisely this position, so much so that my arguments were crucial in causing Solo principals to direct their venom against me – as you also know. But I think that in the present context you are overlooking some important factors.

Let me give an example – admittedly an extreme one, but not more extreme than many others I could cite. Recently, a poster on SoloPassion announced that Chris Sciabarra “has a much greater job on his hands than just responding to Diana's charges. He also has to totally repudiate all of his previously published work on or related to Objectivism, either as primary writer or editor, most especially TRR and JARS. That I don't expect to happen anytime soon, if ever - and that tells me a lot about his purported ‘integrity"."

I had to read this statement three times before I could believe that any sane person could make such a suggestion, and in private email I “indulged” in name-calling and moral condemnation about the person who posted it. I believe that both the names I called him and the condemnation that accompanied it were totally warranted, and that I went on the evidence in his statement. Nor do I for a moment believe that honest error could possibly account for his position. And I cannot quite imagine how anything but some ugly hidden motive could explain it. Nor that it is even possible to “strawman” such a position. I did not “assume” evil in this statement; I saw it.

You see, I completely agree with your four points when one is addressing what you term “intellectual adversaries.” But I do not agree that the core of the conflict here is between such adversaries. We are dealing with thugs masquerading as intellectuals, masquerading as rational beings, masquerading as Objectivists, and we should not pretend otherwise. Not if we value intellectuality, reason, and Objectivism.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip writes:

I am an opponent of Diana's on many things...including many aspects of how she judges people...but there are several things it is important to do in dealing with intellectual adversaries:

(1) Don't oversimplify or 'strawman' their positions

(2) Don't indulge in ad hominem, character assassination, or name calling...even if they do.

(3) Don't jump to moral condemnation or overstated character evaluations prior to hard and thorough evidence that honest error is totally impossible....even if they do.

(4) Just go on the evidence in people's statements. Do not read conspiracy theories or ulterior meanings or hidden motives into people's statements

A very sobering perspective. This is an approach I hold as ideal, though I sometimes find myself not living up to it. It is an approach that keeps one's feet planted firmly on the ground and not running away with the imagination. If the imagination is not grounded in evidence, it is merely fantasy. The only real evidence we have of people's perspectives is their words and their actions. It is easy to interpret more than is really there. Our biases can play a large role in shaping those interpretations. Objectivity requires we be aware of our biases and pay attention to the evidence. Thanks Philip.

Oh, by the way, earlier today I was thinking of a response to this thread and was also considering an analogy for a gay orientation. I came up with shyness. As I see it, like homosexuality, shyness can be thought of as being the result of a physiological predisposition to orient the individual's consciousness a particular way that can make life more challenging than it would be with another orientation. On this view, like shyness, homosexuality is just a fact of reality not a choice to be ethically evaluated.

Recently my wife rented Brokeback Mountain. I had told her previously that I would not be interested in watching it but she conveniently forgot. I wanted to spend the evening with my wife, and I thought I was pretty open minded about considering other perspectives, so I decided to watch it with her. When "the scene" arrived I had to leave. I had to leave not because of a moral response but because of a visceral response.

There I was, engaged in the movie, empathically experiencing the characters perspectives, and the characters began taking me to a place my being was not oriented to go. A trivial example of the same effect is when you watch a horror movie and the protagonist does everything you wouldn't do. It breaks the spell. It breaks the empathic connection to the character and the movie. I had the same type of response, but deeper in my being, to Brokeback Mountain. My being was oriented against that experience.

The interesting thing is that at no point did this become a moral response as it seems to for a lot of people. A physiological predisposition to orient my consciousness with particular motivational biases has determined my sexual orientation. But it is my interpretive framework interacting with my motivational biases that ultimately determines my moral responses.

An orientation of consciousness determines how sensory information is processed into a perceptual experience. An interpretive framework determines how perceptual information is integrated into a conceptual experience. Motivational biases determine how we respond to what we perceive and conceive. I had a motivated response to my perceptual integrations but not to my conceptual integrations. Why?

My interpretive framework includes an understanding of causality that allows for both a relative perspective and an absolute perspective. I know that a homosexual's response to a given sexual event is relative to his particular physiological predisposition: he or she has a particular set of motivational biases. My absolute perspective, held in my mind's eye, includes, and has integrated, the idea that each node in the web of interacting individuals is a relative point of view. Therefore, my absolute perspective does not devalue the relative perspective of a given individual. Nor do I have to agree with or hold the same relative perspective. I can hold both relative perspectives simultaneously in my imagination and consider them equally valid. Mine is not threatened by the existence of others that disagree. By integrating other people’s relative perspectives my absolute perspective allows me to be more open to exploring points of view that differ from my own. An alternative point of view does not threaten my right to my own or my certainty.

Consider the traditional approach to absolute perspectives in religion or in Objectivism. There is one ultimate view of truth, of right, and of good. Anything that deviates from this absolute perspective is false, wrong, or evil. (I could go off on a multitude of tangents here, but I won't.) Homosexuality, viewed from the perspective of someone who has an absolute view of human nature that does not integrate relative perspectives, will typically be viewed as deviant: false, wrong, or evil. Any such deviant perspective is a challenge to the individual's absolute view of human nature. Even such an absolutist cannot escape a knowledge of the reality that their position is only relative. Alternative views are a threat to certainty and security. Remember, self-esteem is tied to our competence in the face of reality and our understanding of existence is the foundation of our competence. Deviant relative perspectives are seen as a threat to the ego because they challenge one's certainty and security. Anyone who threatens one's ego will be attacked.

I think this is why many are motivated to moralize sexual orientation. Their absolutist view allows them to self-righteously attack those who threaten their claim to certainty.

If I knew Diana Hsieh better I might suggest this is the psychological dynamic at work in her relative to the unorthodox Objectivist's she attacks. But I don't know her so I won't say that.

Paul

(Note: I wrote this before seeing any responses to Philip's post)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil, you say that one of Hseih's positions is that "it's better to be born (become?) hetero-sexual as nature and evolution intended." But if it's true that approximately 10% of any population is and alway has been homosexual, surely one could conclude that that's precisely what nature and evolution intended -- that it's "natural" that a certain percentage of the population be homosexual. .(Although "intended" is a dubious word to use in this context.)

Barbara

There's been research done on the neuro nature of sexuality. Also Journals sexuality & neuroscience are available online and at universities.

At this point, when someone says "it's better to be [insert this or that]" is their opinion. I can take it or leave it, depending on how valid that is to my life (none). For Chris, he's going to be who he's going to be, sexuality wise, and he has stated it. Who cares what others opine.

I'd say the same for my own opinions/ideas. Everyone else go get their own ideas! Reality is the final arbitrator... and within that reality is the reality of social interaction/human behavior. [laugh]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara:

But I think that in the present context you (Phil) are overlooking some important factors.

Barbara is absolutely right. Phil, I know you mean well. But as Jenna observed, and Barbara also notes, the whole business is nuts. Laughter is the first sane response. The second is to drill down a bit, get at some of the plate tectonics of the situation under the hot lava. Ellen Stuttle does this very well over at ROR, laying out how Chris' integrity carries a benefit for those who don't have it, and how he maintains it at a serious cost to himself. On the other side of the ledger, we're starting to see just how far players like Maurone and Perigo are prepared to sell themselves out in order to avenge obscure personal scores. So far it looks like a fair way indeed.

Phil:

4) Just go on the evidence in people's statements. Do not read conspiracy theories or ulterior meanings or hidden motives into people's statements.

People often write in such a mealy-mouthed style when they are trying to dress up an unpleasant prejudice in pseudo intellectual drag. For example, what would you think if I said the following:

"I regard being Black as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not think any case can be made that being a loving Black person is immoral."

Might you suspect I have an underlying opinion of Black people that is not particularly positive? Do you consider Hsieh's comment about gays should be taken as a complimentary one, or an uncomplimentary one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> if it's true that approximately 10% of any population is and alway has been homosexual, surely one could conclude that that's precisely what nature and evolution intended

Barbara, that's an interesting point and I hadn't thought of it. But my purpose was not to argue in favor of Diana's two positions on homosexuality but against the over the top idea that it was proof of weasellyness or dishonesty or subterfuge. That would be to make the same cynical mistaken of lack of any possible benevolent interpretation that she is making with Chris.

Michael, my point is that the most effective counter to bad ideas is not to draw a psychological diagnosis whether they could be held innocently or whether the opponent has to be evil or trying to curry favor with an orthodoxy (or with academics -- again, same mistake as is being made by the other side against Chris!) but to take them at face value and rebut them or ask questions about them.

This is what I'm doing on SP right now. I created a thread called "Questions for Diana." You can read my posts and you'll see I'm pulling no punches in my strong disagreements...but I am not using invective.

And you can see that there is a very vigorous debate between me and four? other people against me on that thread. The only problem is I don't really have time to keep answering everything said by that many opponents. If you think my posts and discussion are *bad or improper ones*...please post that here (rather than there, so I can keep my questions going) why you think so.

If you aren't civil, it gets in the way. The person who has nothing to fear from clear and direct expression of his ideas is the person who -avoids- ranting and name-calling?

Why?

Because his points and arguments get lost. And he can't win his case.

Are you accepting Peter Schwartz's sanction principle? That I shouldn't have a discussion or debate because I'm 'sanctioning' it by disagreeing with it or critiquing its basis it on the deepest level?

RESPECT FOR THE DISCUSSION DOES NOT MEAN SANCTION OR RESPECT FOR THE POINT OF VIEW.

(That's not true in every single case...e.g., a debate on whether genocide is proper...but it is true when someone propounds a long list of moral charges and accusations and data against someone...they have to be answered.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now