The all-too-aptly-named "Solopassion"


Recommended Posts

Barbara and others, I don't have time to both debate you guys on why I -shouldn't- be debating or its not an honest adversary and to actually debate.... I'm already over my head in the actual debate...and I need to concentrate on that.

If at some point, I decide its not worthwhile or in good faith or I have a nervous breakdown...I'll drop out :-)

It's late and I need sleep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not planning to make a habit of doing so, but I must blip in.

L. W. Hall wrote:

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.

Quite. Look, of course Chris missed a subtlety of logic in what he said to Joe (who, keep in mind, was -- notice the past tense -- a friend of his, and himself gay). But Chris was not missing the insult in Diana's words.

E.g., my post-polio problems exactly render me "unfortunate and suboptimal," since they mean that I can't engage in full participation in various reading activities I'd like to engage in. I wouldn't consider it a slur for anyone to acknowledge, as I'm well aware is true, the unfortunate suboptimality of the condition. But to say this of a person of homosexual sexual persuasion is an insult, whether Diana intended an insult or not. And her comment indeed was weasel-words -- against which Linz normally fulminates.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HONOR OF CHRIS SCIABARRA AS IF IT WERE PROPER TO QUESTION IT.

Wrong, Michael, and I expect Chris would be among the first to agree that the sentiment that anyone's honor -- whoever's -- is improper to question is itself epistemologically invalid. Indeed, that comment reminds me very much of those who said in the Original Split days, "Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged; what else do you need to know?" (Harry Binswanger prominently amongst these people.)

You give every basis to the view that it's two mirror images screaming at each other when you say things of this sort.

(I haven't read the rest of the comments; my suboptimality kicking in.)

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil: "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?"

No, I am accepting Ayn Rand's principle, the reason why she never answered attacks on her. She often said -- as anyone who knew her will attest -- that she refused to do so because she was much more famous than her attackers, and that by engaging in a debate with them, she would be giving them publicity and an audience they could not otherwise have. A second reason for her silence was her refusal to grant that issues of her character and rationality were legitimate subjects of debate.

Phil, don't you see what you are doing by your conscientious efforts to defend Chris? How many people have ever heard of Perigo, Hseih, Maurone, Fahy, or Valliant? How many people are interested in what they might have to say about anything? But a great many people in the Objectivist world and much beyond it know of and respect Chris and his work. You are making it possible for his attackers to attract the latter to Diana's article and their mindless acceptance of it, and you are granting that every bit of her twisted, incoherent "reasoning" is a legitimate subject for serious discussion by intelligent people. You are not helping Chris by doing so, you are hurting him.

And you surely are well aware that your reasoning will have not the least effect on people such as Diana, Perigo, Weiss and the others; that much is overwhelmingly clear in how they already are distorting the questions you raise. They did not come to their conclusions through reasoning, and they will not be dissuaded by reasoning. You are simply prolonging a discussion that never should have begun. As a friend said to me: "The parasites need a host. Remove the nutriment."

A phrase I always liked, with which people once prefaced disagreements with adversaries, was "My worthy opponent states.. . " Chris has no worthy opponents in this debate. For the sake of the respect you have for him, do not act as if he had.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

No, I don't buy into Schwartz's sanction principle. But actions do have consequences.

I merely pointed out one practical result. Your discussion is giving these people audience so they can repeat over and over their smears against Sciabarra. They don't really expect to win you over (they are not that dumb, they know better). All they want from you is a token opponent to generate audience so they can repeat their hatred and hope some of it sinks in to the some people in the audience. If that result does not bother you, that's your business. I merely state it for your awareness.

I will admit that I sympathize with your attempt, however. I certainly did it enough. I was banned over there because I was not an easy token opponent to PARC and the Barbara-hatred. The result on the audience was not what they wanted.

Here is my unsolicited opinion. Keep your antenna tuned to audience and see what is happening there - then see if your arguments are budging those people in any respect.

Wrong, Michael, and I expect Chris would be among the first to agree that the sentiment that anyone's honor -- whoever's -- is improper to question is itself epistemologically invalid. Indeed, that comment reminds me very much of those who said in the Original Split days, "Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged; what else do you need to know?"

I should have been clearer, but my own disgust is high. That quote of mine is to be taken in a certain context. In the case of Ayn Rand, she announced to the whole world a situation that had no logical explanation. Being Mrs. Logic, this attitude of Binswanger's (and others) caused a bad impact.

The context I should have stressed is that Chris didn't do anything except e-mail a few people privately and give some negative opinions. In that context, it is not proper to question his honor. (I won't even stress the level of who is doing the questioning.)

If Sciabarra plagiarized someone for his texts, bribed a university employee for his academic standing, or if he suddenly embraced Islam, repudiating Objectivism and freedom, and then received a grant of a million dollars from an Islamic foundation for scholarly work, or something of this level, I agree that it would be proper to question his character.

So let me rephrase my statement:

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

The full context is:

1. Sciabarra is known the world over for his scholarship on Rand and freedom and has received high honors from several places.

2. The people who are now questioning his honor are crummy little underachievers with nothing comparable to his achievements or honors.

3. The questioning is done by a flagrant violation of his privacy and misinterpretation of what was disclosed.

4. Just as icing on the cake, Sciabarra has greatly helped Hsieh in her pursuits, provided at least one opportunity for professional publication for Maurone, and has worked for free for Perigo for years.

Bah!

Let me give my statement another tweak:

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HONOR OF CHRIS SCIABARRA AS IF IT WERE PROPER FOR THESE CRUMMY LITTLE UNDERACHIEVERS TO QUESTION IT WITH PETTY GOSSIP.

There. That's better.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara wrote:

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.)

Succinct and well-stated. It is rather tiring to hear the misuse of the evolution argument against the morality or "optimality" of homosexuality over and over, despite the numerous times this counter-argument has been made.

I would also point out that the argument that only a small fraction of the population is homosexual, therefore it is sub-optimal to be homosexual bears little fruit. One might as well argue that it is suboptimal to be a physicist or an artist because only a small part of the population is either a physicist or an artist. Indeed, given that many women discriminate against men in the sciences or against men who are atheists and Objectivists, we might use a similar argument to say that it is really sub-optimal to be a physicist, atheist, Objectivist. But, it should be clear to us (those who respect reality, are atheists, and Objectivists) that this is not a convincing argument that no one should be or want to be a physicist, atheist, Objectivist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip,

We have often fought together for civility and honesty in the heated discussions of SOLO HQ and SOLO Passion. You should know that I fully agree with you on the issues of carrying on a civil and fruitful discussion with someone worthy of the assumption of intellectual honesty. For a number of practical reasons, one may even choose to treat someone unworthy of these considerations as though they were worthy.

In any case, one should never oversimplify someone else's argument when trying to refute it. Generally, it is foolish to call someone a name, but there are conditions when seriously negative traits do need to be noted. One should not jump to moral condemnation without thorough evidence that it is justified. One should be cautious about attributing actions to conspiracy theories and hidden motives.

So, I agree with your statements 1 and 3. I think that statements 2 and 4 require some refinement.

I have read about a dozen essays that Diana Hsieh has written which attack Dr. David Kelley and TOC. I have seen such a pattern of context dropping, strawman re-statements of David's arguments, strange interpretations of words, unjustified assumptions of a consistently negative nature, and generally poor reasoning, though dressed in the form of reasoning, that I judge Diana to be massively motivated by hatred against David and TOC. She is so thoroughly wrongheaded and dedicated to it, that I have come to the conclusion that she has mental health issues. Feel free to defend her if you wish and I will give you a respectful hearing, but it is my assessment that you will have to trek up Mt. Everest in this without water and without oxygen. She has built up a very impressive case for her troubled mind.

There are some people who are not open to rational argument. Diana is one and Holly Valiant is another very clear example. James Valiant has a better facade, but it is merely that. Casey Fahey is another of that class. It simply does not matter how many pearls you might cast at their feet, they will only see muck. They are rationalists, not rational people. They are playing games, not living in reality.

Now, note that I am saying this in a Rant section of OL. This is my honest evaluation after spending hours of reading their writings and after discussing a number of issues with most of them. None of them are stupid, but they are very wrongheaded because they have severe emotional problems. You have dealt with them enough that you are entitled to having your own opinion. I am not trying to change their minds on issues any longer because I am sure that I understand the futility of the effort. A clear and rational argument will not have any positive effect.

My time is just too valuable to be spent in carrying on such purposeless discussions with them. Bluntly, I would much rather spend my time in discussions with people like you, Barbara, Michael, Paul, Jenna, Roger, and Ellen. I also have a family and a demanding business to run. I love solving complex materials problems. I enjoy training young scientists. I like writing and I like reading also. I like physical exercise, which I get too little of these days. I have seriously too little time to do the many things I want to do. Value judgments must be made when you are a mortal man of finite resources. Time is my most finite resource.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It simply does not matter how many pearls you might cast at their feet, they will only see muck. They are rationalists, not rational people. They are playing games, not living in reality.

Now, note that I am saying this in a Rant section of OL. This is my honest evaluation after spending hours of reading their writings and after discussing a number of issues with most of them. None of them are stupid, but they are very wrongheaded because they have severe emotional problems. You have dealt with them enough that you are entitled to having your own opinion. I am not trying to change their minds on issues any longer because I am sure that I understand the futility of the effort. A clear and rational argument will not have any positive effect.

My sentiments exactly, figured out about 3 days ago. My focus has been using my multifaceted presence (online, real life, professional life) to focus on what I like about Sciabarra's work--- but leave that to me to find out first. I don't mind dedicating my life to promoting something good.

I am a disseminator of knowledge, and real critical thinking. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, I have read more of what you are attempting to do on SoloPassion, and I am more strongly than ever convinced that you are making a serious mistake.

1) You have been forced to back down on certain issues because you do not know and are not being given the facts or the context in which those issues arose. But the attackers see that you are backing down, which is all they want.

2) Since you are approaching Diana's post as an intellectual exercise, you have to speak as if she's honest, which she is not. She is twisting, distorting, leaving out, and lying -- just as she earlier did to you on Noodlefood, at which time you were significantly less kind in your evaluation of her.

3) Still more unfortunatly, you are being pushed to defend the contents of a book you admit you have not read, Chris' Russian Radical, while its contents are being presented to you in a disgracefully dishonest manner. I have read and carefully studied the book over the years; you are not being told the truth about its contents, and so you end up making such statements as "If that's what Chris S. is saying Rand offers the world of philosophy, then using the awkward term "dialectics" seems not to say that." YOU DO NOT KNOW AND ARE NOT BEING TOLD how and why he uses the term, which he explains clearly, simply, and at considerable length in his book and elsewhere. Phil, you would not attack a book you hadn't read; don't engage in the futile exercise of trying to defend a book you haven't read.

4) You are allowing the attacks on Chris now to branch out into still other areas that even Hseih did not bring up. We are seeing criticisms of Chris and his work that would not have arisen without your attempts to defend him in areas where you don't have the information to do so. The areas of attack are snowballing. Why on earth do you want to continue doing this? Do you want Chris' attackers saying: "You see? Even Phil agrees with us about this and this and this" -- when Phil only appears to agree because he is dealing with false, imcomplete, and distorted information.

I say again that you are not helping Chris, you are hurting him.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to suggest that instead of arguing on forums, that we can focus instead on Chris' work itself and how it adds to one's experience?

Also, be sure to know what arena you are walking into. I try not to walk into discussions of which I have little knowledge (such as chemistry, physics, music, etc.). I walk into areas of which I am able to engage (such as cognitive/psych. neuroscience, writing, art, media studies, biology, web design, linguistics, basic calculus, paleoanthropology, cult studies, complexity science, and photography). Otherwise, you will go over your head and the less astute and more voracious will see your lack of knowledge as a victory for them.

No one knows everything. To support that in the realm of argument is to support omniscience. Just because you don't know a field, or a definition, or whatever, does not follow that they are right. It just means you don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael rephrases:

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

The full context is:

1. Sciabarra is known the world over for his scholarship on Rand and freedom and has received high honors from several places.

2. The people who are now questioning his honor are crummy little underachievers with nothing comparable to his achievements or honors.

3. The questioning is done by a flagrant violation of his privacy and misinterpretation of what was disclosed.

4. Just as icing on the cake, Sciabarra has greatly helped Hsieh in her pursuits, provided at least one opportunity for professional publication for Maurone, and has worked for free for Perigo for years.

Bah!

Let me give my statement another tweak:

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HONOR OF CHRIS SCIABARRA AS IF IT WERE PROPER FOR THESE CRUMMY LITTLE UNDERACHIEVERS TO QUESTION IT WITH PETTY GOSSIP.

There. That's better.

LOL. Much better. (I wish I could get the emoticons to work; I'd like to use one of those hee-haw guffaw ones.)

Cheers,

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things are just too funny not to comment.

Perigo just weighed in with his usual rhetoric, but then stated that on OL, people are mentioning Hsieh's stance on homosexuality for a diabolical reason:

No doubt they're trying to drive a wedge between me & her.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm, that was funny!

This dude loves to flatter himself. (The flattery from his gang must be getting low.) No, no, no, no, no! I don't think anybody on OL wants to drive a wedge between those two. They belong together. It's far better to have only one garbage dump than to spread it out all over.

The real reason people talk about Hsieh's homosexuality quote, of course, is obvious - to point out Perigo's hypocrisy in not tolerating this in others and Hsieh's totally wrongheaded thinking (and hypocrisy from her tortured twists in logic trying to say that she didn't say what she did).

The idea that Perigo touts that he is a better man than Chris Sciabarra is so far removed from reality that it takes your breath away.

btw - Valliant's acceptance of Hsieh's disclosure of Sciabarra's e-mails was mentioned in that post (and his position is available from his own posts). I wonder just how good a lawyer he is. I know he is a government lawyer (public prosecutor - I believe for San Diego). He sure doesn't know anything about copyright law to hold the views he does.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to come to this board just to register my opposition to the various insanities now occurring--and I will, on an appropriate thread--but I first wish to say that I too noted the onanistic implications of "solo passion," and intentionally titled my bookmark to the site as "SLOP," weeks ago!

In truth, there is also a lot of good material posted there, but the user interface is confusing, sluggish, and nonorgonomic, especially in comparison to RoR. And then there are those insanities, that militant non-objectivity ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodney,

It's good to see you. Welcome to our little home. I hope you enjoy yourself here.

Let me add to the record of your wit (which is devastatingly clever). You are the very first person I know of who noticed that PARC spelled backwards is CRAP. I still have the e-mail.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I assume that even the mildest of jokes about obese, drooling, wine-soaked rage-filled gay NZ guys are out of the question?

rde

At this point, the Ultimate Height<tm> may involve Viagra<tm>, or at the very least some kind of power tool. Or, maybe going the Portnoy's Complaint route, and investing in a nice cut of raw liver.

"And that's the worst thing I ever did: I fu**ked my family's dinner"

-Philip Roth, "Portnoy's Complaint"

(Very likely paraphrased due to the

effects of aging, but surely you get

my, er...point.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Diana lays down dry homo-rage:

"I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal".

"Suboptimal?" Oh, good Gawd! Maybe I should spend more time over at Limp Noodle; I'm feeling like this is a virtual treasure trove for raw working material.

Where, oh where to get started on this one, if at all? So many possibilities...

Well, let's just go right in there.

First off, anyone that uses that kind of dry, superior entree-vous is suffering from some serious meglo-twit-itness. Diana is, on a good day, a minor, largely unrecognized thinker, outside of being the frontrunner to replace Leonard's current lapdog or, in this case, lap-cat. She is nothing to nobody, on the global picture. By and large, her writing stinks. It stinks because it doesn't have a hint of fire to it. I will hold back here a bit, other than to say I was just thinking about making a comparison to an old, dried-up, and unused piece of equipment that would be found on some birdlady senior citizen rotting away in a nursing facility. That's what her writing is like.

"I regard..." Eff, eff, eff! About the only person I know that has a seriously big enough set of Boys to use that phrase and get away with it is Nathaniel Branden- if he writes that, I'm going to listen. She simply does not have the cajones required to use those words. You are Not Worthy, babe; go back to school (better yet, get out of school and hit the streets- maybe then you'll feel like undoing that bun in your hair, Moneypenny, and hiking your leg up over that oak desk...Jeez-Louise!)

Shall we move on to "suboptimal?" I think not- why tamper with standalone A-hole work? Does this have something to do with the Ultimate Height<tm>? "Suboptimal." No, no, no! This is just not a good word, even in engineering documents.

Now, I haven't investigated this new love affair between Droolie and Noodle. I suppose that the way things fly in this world, it could already be on the rocks by the time I post this. But it definitely raises some, er, credibility issues between the two newlyweds, does it not? Noodle, in her "suboptimal" statement, is backpedaling. But, she is backpedaling without fail into what is clearly homo-hating at worst, but a superior, how-unfortunate view, a skewed, mutant kind of bare-tolerance might do as well.

In either event, Droolie is up to bat, because why...why oh why oh why?

Is his level of desperation; desperation for alliances such that he would align with what is clearly a homophobe? This one makes Ralph and Alice Cramden look like Brad and Angelina. Heavens to Betsy!

There, that should do.

rde

Always here to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara, we disagree on this. I've only got time right now to address what to me are the key parts:

1. Opening Up Side Issues: I don't think I'm opening up new avenues of attack that would not otherwise be opened up. Diana clearly intends in the near future to write long posts attacking Chris's book and his work on many fronts. The points where I'm *not defending Chris* re: his book or his interpretation of what Diana said on homosexuality are not central to the main charge of dishonesty she is leveling. And if I think he's wrong (or in the case of the book, I'm raising the question of whether dialectics is an accurate or useful term--which is not an issue of honesty but of clarity of thinking), I'm going to say he is wrong.

My purpose is not to defend Chris (or to attack him), but to raise every issue.

2. Effectiveness/Appropriateness of Debate: If I make good points or ask probing questions which were brushed aside, I'm putting them on the record and the fact they are not answered or not well answered will be evident to bystanders. The uncontested false argument (whether done out of conviction *or* malice) always becomes the accepted conventional wisdom. It doesn't fall of its own weight because most people are busy and don't explore or question it for themselves. That's true whether the arguments attack character, or attack someone's intellectual position or books. People will say, "well no one has answered or thoroughly questioned Diana, so she must be right".

> you have to speak as if she's honest, which she is not

I'm not actually doing that one way or the other. I'm just asking her a series of questions of the nature of the how can you say that or what is your evidence nature. That doesn't presume honesty or dishonesty. It allows the chips to fall where they may on that as I continue with probing questions still to be asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Phil...

Does that also mean that you do not believe that Diana is in complete Objectivist robot/fundamentalist mode? Don't you see any of that? I do.

This isn't one of those beloved evidence issues, for Heaven's Sake!

It's either that she is so out there in her fanaticism that she can't see her own self, or, she is simply out to pick a fight, in the hopes of elevating her position (translation: attempted proactive ass-kissing, on-high).

She picked a stupid fight with Chris, and there is no reason for it- the man has never hurt a flea, and anyone with a brain and some history knows it.

How does a bully get attention? By picking fights, man. Why does a bully pick fights? The main reason? They distrust themselves on a deep level, maybe on they can't even see.

You want to talk social metaphysics? We're freaking looking at it.

rde

Keepin' it Real in the Field

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the compliment.

Of course, that sort of word play has no intellectual content. But at least it serves to counteract any unfair positive effect generated by the word "val(l)iant."

I have read enough on all the voluminous and exhaustive threads about the book in question to know its reasoning and to see the errors. Years ago, I came across a website devoted to pointing out false statements and contradictions in and between the Brandens' books; I saw the same shortcomings in thinking I see now on all those threads. Now I gather that was the website that served as some sort of germ of the book.

I still plan to read the book (for me it's a question of money and situation). If, when I do, I see anything that sways me in its favor, I will admit it. However, this would mean that the book is reasoned differently than all those posts made by its author and editor.

Many of the criticisms of the book were trivial or not valid, and the authors most intelligently shot those down. My main concern is not with their motives or morality, but with the simple fact that they are not being objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK:

btw - Valliant's acceptance of Hsieh's disclosure of Sciabarra's e-mails was mentioned in that post (and his position is available from his own posts). I wonder just how good a lawyer he is. I know he is a government lawyer (public prosecutor - I believe for San Diego). He sure doesn't know anything about copyright law to hold the views he does.

I'd expect he's quite good at trial work. I think I'd have pegged him for a prosecuting attorney, even if I hadn't already known of his profession, by within 50 pages of PARC -- and the prosecutor-presenting-a-summation technique gets more and more obvious as Part I proceeds. He's smooth, smooth at leading the case to the conclusion he wants while misdirecting attention from the flaws of logic. Supposing I were a teacher of logic, I would assign as a project reading Part I of PARC and attempting to identify the argumentative sleight-of-hands. (Part II, of course, also contains such techniques, but becomes more complex to dissect because of his psychological commentary on her psychological commentary. More than straightforword skills at logic is needed to see the problems there.)

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodney,

This is a bit off topic, but your concerns about PARC are exactly what I most object to - the method of thinking and arguing. Rhetoric is used in place of logic with some valid issues (precious few) sprinkled in.

This is precisely what Hsieh did with her article on Sciabarra, except she is not that well versed in the "mix and use" of a bunch of rhetorical techniques. Valliant is a trial lawyer, so he knows how to vary rhetoric. I have counted 9 devices so far and will be presenting a review of them. Hsieh, not being a lawyer, confined herself to 2 (I call them inversion and repetition). I will be posting something on this in a little bit.

Jordan Zimmerman, who has no real dog in this fight, was appalled by the lopsided rhetoric in PARC, so he made a compilation (database) of rhetorical quotes (long, but by no means complete) and made his own comments to them item by item. You can find it here on OL at The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics - One Man's View.

I also presented a discussion of some principal fallacies in PARC Fallacies. There is a pretty good description of Argument by Repetition in that thread.

I can assure you that the mental effort to get through that book is arduous. If you are predisposed to fanaticism and anti-Branden rhetoric, it is a fantastic read because you can go out of focus and drift along on the adjectives, sarcasm and condemnations. If you like balanced inquiry and examination, you find yourself with your jaw dropping constantly in incredulity and then you start fighting with the text as you read. Jordan's database gives you a pretty good appetizer of what I mean.

Edit - It's funny how this post crossed with Ellen's.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how I missed this, but IMHO this is the best line in the whole Hsieh-tyeria, it really does say it all about the Queen Wannabee:

Charles:

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.

I'd imagine anyone is suboptimal if they aren't Diana Hsieh. I wonder if her admiring drones realize that they, too, are suboptimal.

But, I'm betting that she ain't willin' to call Leonard suboptimal. Nope, ain't gonna do that! She'll be nursing that prune on his sickbed, and guiding his hand across the transfer-of-dynasty papers while she's turning off the drip. She is the kind that eats her young, being suboptimal as well. For sure, her old man is suboptimal. Good Lord, what a Nancy-Boy he's gotta be at this point- whupped beyond recognition. I actually pity the poor bastard, in a way. I can only imagine what date night consists of. I'm thinking goofy role playing, and trust me, she ain't no Dagny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> She'll be nursing that prune on his sickbed, and guiding his hand across the transfer-of-dynasty papers while she's turning off the drip...For sure, her old man is suboptimal...what a Nancy-Boy.

Rich, that's beyond the pale. Don't be a feces-hurler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just to put myself on record again, as Ellen and Michael did above, that PARC is a world-leading example of fallacious arguments and misdirection. It is the work of a masterful magician of words who knows how to lead a willing soul where they want to go. I would be surprised if this man does not have a substantial record of convicting innocent men in his real job. And yet, a thinking and a questioning reader can readily unravel all the errors of thinking. Surely, one has the right to expect that anyone who understands the basics of Objectivism should have the skills to understand basic logic and the experience to recognize rhetorical sleigh of hand after being constantly barraged by such techniques by the liberal media and the effete intelligentsia. Haven't we all had to learn to read very critically over the years?

The valiant reader can detect the constant errors. In fact, reading PARC is a massively depressing experience. I can think of nothing more depressing than:

    the disappointment in discovering error after error, when one is looking for rational analysis,the revulsion of having to deal with constant dishonesty, since the mastery of the misdirection is sufficiently clear that one cannot believe the errors are innocent,
    the disappointment in seeing many Objectivists who are rather intelligent being taken in, and
    the disgust that this word magician is so presumptuous as to believe that you cannot see damn straight through his game.
      The reader does need to be seriously valiant to make a constant effort to detect each and every error, to deal with the seriously depressing experiences I listed above, and to resist the first-time impulse to become a book burner, despite being a life-long book lover.
Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK wrote,

"I don't think anybody on OL wants to drive a wedge between those two."

I agree with Michael. As I said earlier, I like the idea that Hsieh has Perigo on a short leash. I seriously think that it could end up being a very good thing. Right now, it's pretty clear that his staying on Hsieh's good side is more important to him than expressing his "rational passion" about her views on homosexuality. The longer that he remains her obedient little puppy with suboptimal "KASS," the more likely it is that his potty training will be a permanent success (once it becomes second nature for him to be careful about what he shits on in his master Hsieh's presence, it might then become a habit which eventually extends to others as well).

J

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