Recommended Posts

Shayne,

You know better than that.

There is a world of difference between acting like a rugged individualist and actually being one.

If you read carefully, you would have noticed I was calling on George to stop acting and start being. Rugged individualists actually do things like study and check, not just pop out with jargon bromides at the drop of a hat. Work is not as fun as acting, I admit. But it is real. Acting is acting and always will be.

Facts are not opinions and all that...

Michael

I'm not following this thread perfectly closely, all I know is that George is right about the principles here except regarding how they apply to children, you evidently prefer politically-correct statists to forthright individualists, and Wolf & Brant are pretending not to know what the phrase "Ayn Rand villain" refers to and some how find this to be a clever retort rather than the stupidity it actually is.

All in all, pretty weird stuff going on in this thread, I think you guys are all on drugs.

Shayne

Do you think an ad hominem deserves more than "a clever retort"? Now you are claiming we "are all on drugs." George and his principles are one thing, how he addresses others is another. In fact, I'm closer to George and his principles than I think Michael is. So much so that the only reason I was able to keep posting here was by adding my signature line. It's interesting how George keeps sanctioning this place with his presence while putting the torch to individual "evil" doers. By his standards Michael is much, much more evil than HH.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you think an ad hominem deserves more than "a clever retort"?

1) You don't know what ad hominem is.

2) You didn't give a clever retort, you just stupidly pretended not to know what "Ayn Rand villain" meant. If the stupidity was intended as a joke of some kind, I missed it. If you were trying to make me look stupid by looking even more stupid, I'm puzzled at your tactic.

Shayne

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting how George keeps sanctioning this place with his presence while putting the torch to individual "evil" doers.

What's your point, that OL should be regarded as a collective?

By his standards Michael is much, much more evil than HH.

How so?

Shayne

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting how George keeps sanctioning this place with his presence while putting the torch to individual "evil" doers.

What's your point, that OL should be regarded as a collective?

By his standards Michael is much, much more evil than HH.

How so?

HH explicity rejects initiation of force must violate rights. Michael obscures philosophical clarity by ruminating in public about Objectivism before he's thought things through. He's trying to change the definition of man apparently out of a desire to change Objectivist ethics and politics leaving basic principles of Objectivism in a shambles. I don't see any need to change any basic principle or that "Man is the rational animal" or that he should pursue a morality of rational self-interest and move politics as close to pure capitalism as is possible. This doesn't mean one can't rationally work off these bases, but if they need destroying then have something more rational ready to take their place. He's working on it. I think he'll be working on it for a long time. There's a lot more, but this is enough. I'm not going back over old things which were dealt with before by me. And no, Michael is not "evil." Rand was very slow to call anyone evil, btw, as opposed to evil ideas and practices. If George didn't call HH evil, he sure did imply it with all his might.

In regard to your first question, no, but this is Michael's (and Kat's) site and he sets the standard for Objectivist representation here, especially for his numerous lengthy postings.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, George, Rand said "a mere 'I don't agree with you is sufficient.'" Not, "Hit the guy on the head with a frying pan."

Read closely: "When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required."

I act under the belief that I am dealing with better people here.

Your excerpt is only for when dealing with irrational persons or where argument is futile. I don't think either condition has been met here. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you.

He wasn't driven away by the rigor of contrary arguments but by bad manners.

Not my bad manners. And of what relevance is this?

Do you see my signature line? I put it there so I wouldn't sanction any Objectivist stuff and nonsense by commenting or not as if I were an Objectivist.

Huh? I'm not sure I agree with your definition of sanction.

Maybe someday you'll understand that you are defining "evil" as any-philosophical-idea thing you disagree with. This is Objectivism as a religion.

Exactly how have I given grounds to conclude that I define evil as any idea I disagree with?

The quote is just my inspiration or purpose for participating in discussions or debates on relevant topics, as compared to MSK's ostensive purpose of persuasion/conversion. Consider the context in which I placed the quote and kindly do not jump to conclusions.

sjw: Let me again clarify: I do not intend to argue that it should be acceptable to give potentially harmful objects to children, I simply do not see a rigorous exposition of the rights that would be violated in such a situation and wished to understand it better. In the course of this discussion I used a "devil's-advocate" tactic at times.

George and his principles are one thing, how he addresses others is another.

Other than an occasional "That's BS|cr*p" (which is not a form of address) I have not been rude. By nature I am excessively direct. Also, I consider directness a virtue. Don't you?

If you think I am addressing others improperly it behooves you to either provide examples and reasoning or admit that your opinion is baseless.

It's interesting how George keeps sanctioning this place with his presence ...

That's like saying I sanction the sidewalk by walking down it, or that I sanction the city by living in it, or that I sanction the landlord by renting from her.

This is an open forum for discussing Objectivism where many intelligent, educated and wise persons share their opinions. The website appears to be well-run and the owner(s) allow discussion to run freely. I am granted freedom of expression on someone else's property at no cost and with few conditions. What's not to like?

Inasmuch as a person offers a value I seek, I see no reason not to trade with with said person. If a Marxist produces excellent tomatoes, what do I care about his philosophy if he has demonstrated mine by creating an excellent product and offering it in trade?

... while putting the torch to individual "evil" doers.

If by this you mean that I have cast light on these discussions then I shall say your compliment is most likely undeserved. Otherwise I have no idea what you mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HH explicity rejects [that] initiation of force must violate rights.

The government should hold a monopoly on the initiation of force and their use of it would not necessarily involve a violation of rights.

For example, if one party sues another for $500 and wins the government could initiate force to cause the $500 to be paid if the loser won't do it. This might not be strictly called an initiation of force though. You might say that it is a reaction to force being used, the force being the loser's reluctance to part with the $500 he owes the winner.

If George didn't call HH evil, he sure did imply it with all his might.

If? It is easily verifiable that I did no such thing. I simply put forth a decent effort at refuting his proposals.

Why are you so fascinated with declaring individuals "evil" or not that you attempt to define the discussion with it?

To call a person "evil" is so over-used and simplistic that I don't find it to be very precise or meaningful. It's usually the ideas that people hold that could be appropriately termed "evil".

I don't think you mean to say you are "excessively" direct. That implies some kind of defect. "Highly" direct?

That might be a better choice of words, yes, thanks. My normal frame of reference is with people who can not handle directness at all, which is surely why I chose "excessive", since these people would consider it excessive.

I think we have gotten way off the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant, I can't speak authoritatively on MSK's ideas because I don't follow all of his posts. Yes I have seen him post some ideas that I consider pragmatic and altruistic and evil, and sometimes I've said as much. But that is different from regarding MSK as pragmatic and altruistic and evil. I see him as groping to resolve some conflict he sees (e.g. the rights of a child vs. the rights of an adult) and he hasn't quite figured it out. I don't recall him saying anything nearly as evil as what HH advocated here. MSK has advocated the idea that adults should take care of children; HH has advocated throwing someone in jail for growing a naturally-occuring plant and smoking it. It's easy to say that MSK's idea might be evil in principle while recognizing a benevolent motive, whereas HH's ideas are pure evil.

Furthermore, I have not seen that MSK declares OL to be some sort of authoritative site and that anyone who posts here agrees. I post here because of his reasonable moderation policies and because I prefer a tolerationist bent to a zealot and that seems to be the basic choice when it comes to all Objectivist forums. I personally do not agree with tolerationism or with ARIish zealotry, but the former is more conducive to independent thinking. And I only regard the tolerationism as a tendency here, it's certainly not a tolerationist site in its essence, nor is MSK a tolerationist.

So--I don't understand why you think it's sanctioning evil to post here.

Shayne

Link to post
Share on other sites
So--I don't understand why you think it's sanctioning evil to post here.

Shayne

I don't. I didn't say any such thing.

--Brant

Yes you did and you know you did, just like you know what "Ayn Rand villain" refers to.

Shayne

Link to post
Share on other sites
Howard,

I ask you to reconsider.

I am deleting the foul language aimed at you in the posts and any further verbal aggression directed at you will be deleted should you decide to stay. If not, it was a pleasure knowing you and I apologize for the poor manners you were shown. I am getting sick of the nasty excesses, so I will be attending to this issue shortly regardless of anything else.

What you experienced was not typical of how discussions are conducted on OL.

Michael

Verbal aggression? He condones real-life physical aggression and you censor me for verbal aggression? Disgusting.

Shayne

Hopefully this will get through...

Shayne simply refuses to acknowledge that the idea of 'choice' becomes very murky when we deal with addictions/mental illness. He lashes out at someone who doesn't approve of crack dealers. He needs to try to understand why some might legitimately see the sale of highly addictive and dangerous drugs as predatory and worthy of legal prevention efforts.

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

George, I've reviewed all the posts of this thread and all your posts going back to March 31 and you never abused HH in any way. On April 11 you were a little rough, that's all. I'm sorry I said differently. It was Shayne who hosed him down causing him to run away. However, HH didn't have the cajones to stick around and defend his beliefs so Shayne probably did us all more of a favor than not.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
So--I don't understand why you think it's sanctioning evil to post here.

Shayne

I don't. I didn't say any such thing.

--Brant

Yes you did and you know you did, just like you know what "Ayn Rand villain" refers to.

Shayne

Okay, Shayne, quote me and I'll deal with it.

An Ayn Rand villain comes in two basic flavors: evil doers and those who sanction evil doers. Parasites and those who let themselves (and others) be hosts for parasites, especially if it's time to go on "strike."

Anything you want to add to this? I'd be interested.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
So--I don't understand why you think it's sanctioning evil to post here.

I don't. I didn't say any such thing.

Yes you did and you know you did, just like you know what "Ayn Rand villain" refers to.

Is this what you are referring to:

Do you see my signature line? I put it there so I wouldn't sanction any Objectivist stuff and nonsense by commenting or not as if I were an Objectivist.

Frankly I am not quite sure what Brant is attempting to express here.

BG: no problem. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider the "Objectivist stuff and nonsense" to be evil, but frequently silly. Like George saying it's okay for government to initiate force when he is actually referring to retaliatory force.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't consider the "Objectivist stuff and nonsense" to be evil, but frequently silly. Like George saying it's okay for government to initiate force when he is actually referring to retaliatory force.

Hey be careful, I said it might be considered either initiation or a reaction (defense).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully this will get through...

Bob,

Please keep disagreements to this level. I HATE moderating people. I get no pleasure from it and it embarrasses me on a real basic level.

I am going to give it a little more time, but if you want to participate here, you know the civility price I charge. I personally hope you are willing to pay that price because you have a good mind.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Howard,

I ask you to reconsider.

I am deleting the foul language aimed at you in the posts and any further verbal aggression directed at you will be deleted should you decide to stay. If not, it was a pleasure knowing you and I apologize for the poor manners you were shown. I am getting sick of the nasty excesses, so I will be attending to this issue shortly regardless of anything else.

What you experienced was not typical of how discussions are conducted on OL.

Michael

Verbal aggression? He condones real-life physical aggression and you censor me for verbal aggression? Disgusting.

Shayne

Hopefully this will get through...

Shayne simply refuses to acknowledge that the idea of 'choice' becomes very murky when we deal with addictions/mental illness. He lashes out at someone who doesn't approve of crack dealers. He needs to try to understand why some might legitimately see the sale of highly addictive and dangerous drugs as predatory and worthy of legal prevention efforts.

Bob

Bob needs to recognize that the choice issue was decided when the person chose to take the drug. Blank out? I don't think people should do crack (or any drug that harms them.) I respect their right to do as they please. I would help someone I thought I could help try to get off drugs. I don't think my money is wisely spent trying to stop people from getting drugs. Prohibition in the U.S. failed for a good reason.

Edited by ethan dawe
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shayne simply refuses to acknowledge that the idea of 'choice' becomes very murky when we deal with addictions/mental illness. He lashes out at someone who doesn't approve of crack dealers. He needs to try to understand why some might legitimately see the sale of highly addictive and dangerous drugs as predatory and worthy of legal prevention efforts.

We're talking about drugs and, tangentially, addiction. Sneaking in mental illness as a way to say addiction negates will is ... sneaky, and false.

The rest of your argument has already been addressed in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf ... pretending not to know what the phrase "Ayn Rand villain" refers to and some how find this to be a clever retort rather than the stupidity it actually is.

All in all, pretty weird stuff going on in this thread, I think you guys are all on drugs.

Shayne

I'm always open to edgamakayshun. I don't see Dr. Stadtler or Cuffy Meigs as villians. Certainly not Jim Taggart. In Fountainhead, I suppose you could say Toohey was rotten, but he's a slug, a dependent. Was Wynand a villian, like Cameron said? Miss Rand showed us tragic figures and foils, rather ordinary, stock characters like Ma Chambers and Joel Sutton. Jim Taggart falls into that category - the worthless heir.

Bringing it down to real people and real cases, who's the villian here? Probably me. Think about it.

:aww:

Link to post
Share on other sites

George, during the short time we've become better acquainted, I've learned to like you a lot. However...

The government should hold a monopoly on the initiation of force and their use of it would not necessarily involve a violation of rights.

This is an article of faith IMO and quite unreal. Hard to explain in a few words, but basically fanciful. Government is an oppressor, a destroyer of rights in a way that no individual ever could. Further, government is impotent to check crime and abuse, so it fails at its sole claim to legitimacy.

I think we have gotten way off the topic.

Productively. Revealingly.

W.

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to post
Share on other sites
...Further, government is impotent to check crime and abuse, so it fails at its sole claim to legitimacy....

That assertion can be checked empirically. What happens when the police go on strike? I have read of a few cases of mass lawlessness in the wake of police strikes. Doesn't that indicate that the government is not impotent to check crime?

Link to post
Share on other sites
...Further, government is impotent to check crime and abuse, so it fails at its sole claim to legitimacy....

That assertion can be checked empirically. What happens when the police go on strike? I have read of a few cases of mass lawlessness in the wake of police strikes. Doesn't that indicate that the government is not impotent to check crime?

Laure, can you point to a police strike/mass lawlessness incident? Thanks.

W.

In January 1971, the police went on strike for a few days, an action that was unheard of, not to mention illegal. Fortunately, temperatures hovered near zero the whole time. Even the muggers stayed home -- that's how cold it was. Crime actually went down while the cops were out. (New York Times)

I also found a pretty funny account of a police strike and rioting in Melbourne Australia in 1923. Initially the rioting was calculated to win a pay hike for cops. None of the looters were caught and much of the 'rioting' was sportsmanlike fisticuffs. Not to minimize civil disorder, of course. But we have to think creatively about public order. Civilian security, armed response, and architectural features like bulletproof glass achieve more crime suppression than government. Nor can government deter serious crimes like murder or rape. Half of all murders go unsolved. Significant numbers of innocent men are charged and imprisoned.

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an article of faith IMO and quite unreal. Hard to explain in a few words, but basically fanciful. Government is an oppressor, a destroyer of rights in a way that no individual ever could. Further, government is impotent to check crime and abuse, so it fails at its sole claim to legitimacy.

It depends on how one defines "government". If we define it the way it's usually been implemented you are right. If we define it to incorporate "consent of the governed" and take that seriously, there is nothing wrong with government.

Shayne

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an article of faith IMO and quite unreal. Hard to explain in a few words, but basically fanciful. Government is an oppressor, a destroyer of rights in a way that no individual ever could. Further, government is impotent to check crime and abuse, so it fails at its sole claim to legitimacy.

It depends on how one defines "government". If we define it the way it's usually been implemented you are right. If we define it to incorporate "consent of the governed" and take that seriously, there is nothing wrong with government.

Shayne

I'm baffled again. How is the U.S. or Canada or Britain for instance defying the consent of the governed? Majority rule, frequent and fair elections, due process and whatnot.

:blink:

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