Al Capone–Style Health Care

[Tony]

OK

Let's have a good ole fashioned Objectivist big hug!

Hmmm

Maybe I am a bit too hopeful for change!

Adam

Adam, When I get careless with words, I always try to acknowledge (especially when pointed out).

When I misunderstand the others' words, I always try to acknowledge.

Does this make me lesser of a human being?

[Selene]

OK

Let's have a good ole fashioned Objectivist big hug!

Hmmm

Maybe I am a bit too hopeful for change!

Adam

Adam, When I get careless with words, I always try to acknowledge (especially when pointed out).

When I misunderstand the others' words, I always try to acknowledge.

Does this make me lesser of a human being?

If you choose to be a lesser human being you can, but I would not recommend that course of action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TTC6FJphWA&feature=player_embedded

Edited March 17, 2010 by Selene

[Tony]

[

Adam, When I get careless with words, I always try to acknowledge (especially when pointed out).

When I misunderstand the others' words, I always try to acknowledge.

Does this make me lesser of a human being?

If you choose to be a lesser human being you can, but I would not recommend that course of action.

So it doesn't according to your moral standard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TTC6FJphWA&feature=player_embedded

Would have liked the movie better if Mel restrained himself on the gore parts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Red,

If Ed thought using "we" was careless for "human being," that could only mean one thing: that he would start from the position of him not being a human being.

Well, here's the news.

I've met Ed.

I swear to you by all that I hold sacred, Ed Hudgins is a human being.

As I am a human being, too, I don't mind him saying "we" in that context. I don't think it's careless.

Let's try this to make it more palatable for you. Think of "we" in Ed's context as an abbreviation for "we humans." Sort of like a contraction of "does not" to "don't."

Shortening our phrases is a common habit in English usage.

Er...

Uh oh...

I said "our phrases"...

Michael

[Tony]

I just read your post above, so this is no longer relevant.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Red Grant

[Tony]

Let's try this to make it more palatable for you. Think of "we" in Ed's context as an abbreviation for "we humans." Sort of like a contraction of "does not" to "don't."

Shortening our phrases is a common habit in English usage.

Er...

Uh oh...

I said "our phrases"...

Michael

...and I thank for your articulate answer. This finally satisfies my rather rigorous standard, (some might call it "pedantic",..).

Still woulda been classy if Ed himself replied the way you replied. He doesn't need to be shy.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Red Grant

[Tony]

I want to thank Ed Hudgins for his contributions to The Atlas Society.

Red Grant and Adam Selene are not “We Objectivists.” Red Grant came here and immediately asked for the moderators definition of “Bullying.” I would consider this before responding, and his supporter, Anarchist Adam Selene is not an Objectivist. Well, I would respond, if they say anything of interest, which is possible, but not probable. I would not appreciate coming to an Objectivist site and then discover I am being challenged to debate, Rand 101. That is not why I support this site.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Jonathan,

I admit that I am getting a kick out of you on SLOP.

Among the several aspects I am enjoying, there is one in particular that is much more serious than the give-and-take of rhetoric. I don't know how many times you have requested that Perigo (or anyone for that matter) define his terms as provided by Objectivist epistemology. In other words, genus and differentia.

You have even framed it in an artistic manner for emphasis, the "Turandot Challenge," making obvious reference to Perigo's own mocking of the ARI folks for not answering his complaints against Peikoff's views on electoral politics and religion.

How many times has it been that you have asked? Five? Six? That sounds about right. Nobody even comments on your request, much less answers it.

Dayaamm!

(But they do find the time to call you all sorts of names.)

I can't think of any better proof that the views expounded on that thread have nothing to do with Objectivism.

If these folks (by which I mean SLOPPERS as defined by the genus and differentia presented in my opening post on this thread) cannot distinguish between what is "objective" and what is "subjective" using elementary Objectivist epistemology, I wonder what their position would be if they tried to further develop their sorry-ass excuses for concepts...

Michael

Edited March 17, 2010 by Red Grant

[Tony]

Red Grant and Adam Selene are not “We Objectivists.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Adam wrote:

. . . wondering if their is a formal excommunication procedure enshrined in the High Temple of "O"bjectivism which must be that decaying structure that you can occasionally see as the light from Wyatt's torch flickers in the winds of history...

end quote

You really tick me off. A hero like Ed Hudgins deserves a better reception here. That was an interesting analogy so I will answer. Your depiction of ARI Objectivism as a decaying structure speaks of your inner rot. They are growing, and growing, thanks to those invitations in Ayn Rand’s books.

There is no formal ARI excommunication procedure. It is not a religion, though some of us can be dogmatic. Those dogmatic people are moral. You are not, in an intellectual sense. You are like Kant, though more openly vicious. Virtually all ARI Objectivists that I have known really have thought it through. They just won’t speak to you.

I am growing weary of Anarchists who use Ayn Rand as an inroads to “decent society” while at the same time besmirching her. I am weary of Anarchists who use the freedom and prosperity of America as a launching pad to destroy America.

Rational Anarchists are perched on Rand’s statue like a sickly pirate’s parrot, crapping on her philosophy. She shrugged you off long ago, but you keep swooping down.

To use a euphemism from the TV show “Caprica,” “Frack you! Get lost, Creep.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I realize that it is difficult for crusader type tribal-thinking people who like to demonize "enemies" to imagine a person can make a pure expression of contempt about someone's acts without trying to engage in a group movement, but that is exactly what I was doing.

I would not appreciate coming to an Objectivist site and then discover I am being challenged to debate, Rand 101. That is not why I support this site.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

That is a vision of human life I don't expect a crusader-type tribal-thinking person to understand. But that is what OL is really all about.

Michael

Edited March 17, 2010 by Red Grant

[Brant Gaede]

I'm waiting for the health care bill to be jammed through Congress so I can watch the spectacle of the absolute destruction of the Democratic Party. Aside from that, however, I am lobbying a local Dem. Congresscritter not to vote for it. If she votes for it she'll be voted out of office. If she doesn't she might be able to keep her job.

--Brant

Edited March 17, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm waiting for the health care bill to be jammed through Congress so I can watch the spectacle of the absolute destruction of the Democratic Party. Aside from that, however, I am lobbying a local Dem. Congresscritter not to vote for it. If she votes for it she'll be voted out of office. If she doesn't she might be able to keep her job.

--Brant

The knives of November are being sharpened. It is interesting to note how La Pelosi wants to get the bill through the House. It will not be a straight up and down vote. It will be an indirect vote based on some crafty parliementary trick. The bastards have not the guts to stand up for their foul deeds. I look forward to voting in November against whatever Democrat is running for any office whatsoever. It is get even time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 17, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Red,

You are right to make the comparisons.

Peter goes over the top. That seems to be part of his make-up.

I sense a good heart underneath, though. Just like I sense with you.

(Isn't that an odd thing to say on a forum devoted to discussing Objectivism? )

OL is not part of any formal movement, so Peter ultimately speaks for Peter here. Just like I speak for me and you speak for you.

This arrangement of each person speaking for himself is not perfect, but I believe it's pretty darn close.

Rather than try to muzzle this person or that, I try to keep some kind of balance so that each can say what he believes--but without taking over the forum in machine-gun-like posting. As to the content, think of there being a middle area (a small middle area) where flexibility on nastiness has a little breathing room. It's possible to rupture the boundary and go way overboard. When I become aware of it, that's when I intervene. But that boundary is made out of a pliable material, not something that suddenly shatters like glass.

I don't think this is the right way in terms of cognitive precision, but human beings don't interact with cognitive precision. Every dog has his many days and barks a bit too much. That's just the way it is. So in terms of human behavior, judicious flexibility, with each person speaking only for himself, is the best way I have found to keep a fertile ground for intelligent discussion. It works a lot better than cognitive or ideological rigidity.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael S. Kelly wrote:

Peter goes over the top. That seems to be part of his make-up.

End quote

True. What bugged me was that there were no Objectivists to welcome a VIP. I thought it would be interesting to have Ed here, but after the reception he got, he would not be back, except to announce something new or upcoming at The Atlas Society. I wanted to say what I said in a loud, over-the-top voice.

Ed sent me a typed “paper letter,” at the end of February, thanking me for my support, and at the bottom he wrote, “Thanks again!” in ink and signed his name. So, I just contributed to Atlas again. His title is Director of Advocacy & Senior Scholar.

I like being able to talk to people like Ed, and BB. I don’t want subscribers on OL to drive them away. Yet, I appreciate the freedom Michael gives us to speak our minds.

The vote is Sunday.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Ed Hudgins]

Michael S. Kelly wrote:

Peter goes over the top. That seems to be part of his make-up.

End quote

True. What bugged me was that there were no Objectivists to welcome a VIP. I thought it would be interesting to have Ed here, but after the reception he got, he would not be back, except to announce something new or upcoming at The Atlas Society. I wanted to say what I said in a loud, over-the-top voice.

Ed sent me a typed "paper letter," at the end of February, thanking me for my support, and at the bottom he wrote, "Thanks again!" in ink and signed his name. So, I just contributed to Atlas again. His title is Director of Advocacy & Senior Scholar.

I like being able to talk to people like Ed, and BB. I don't want subscribers on OL to drive them away. Yet, I appreciate the freedom Michael gives us to speak our minds.

The vote is Sunday.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter - Thanks for your kind words but don't worry about me being scared away. As I noted above, I'm pretty busy so I don't spend a whole lot of time in chat rooms, and when I see someone else making the arguments I would make, I figure I don't need to add much.

But OL is a pretty friendly place. You can pick and choose the threads on which you want to participate, as suits your personal interests.

So I hope you stick around!

Best, Ed