Iran in deal to end nuclear dispute

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Leonid,

How on earth is it possible to explain something to a person insisting on bigoted behavior?

I've been trying with you, but you keep on repeating the same old prejudices, even when presented with facts.

All such a person does when presented with facts is do like you just did, ignore them, then ask for facts as if they had never been presented.

So reason doesn't work.

Rational thought doesn't work.

And I am not eternal.

Believe it or not, I have been able to get through to Adonis and establish common ground. (If you want to know where, just read the posts again. I'm sick of the ignore-then-demand-the-ignored-part game you play.)

I can't get through to you to even look at a fact objectively, i.e., without all the mind reading. You're too committed to your prejudices. So I am going to stop trying again.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"Common ground" with Adonis is Adonis's ground. He's rational until he hits his basic suppositions and his knowledge and intelligence doesn't help him go one step further. Adonis writes very good English and his perspective is interesting for all its disingenuous sophisticalization, which is employed only as necessary. That he makes many rational and true statements only dresses up the rest of the stuff for church and dinner. I've stopped reading and replying to most of his postings. If I were to meet him privately I would not have a conversation, just make a polite remark and move on.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

"Common ground" with Adonis is Adonis's ground. He's rational until he hits his basic suppositions and his knowledge and intelligence doesn't help him go one step further. Adonis writes very good English and his perspective is interesting for all its disingenuous sophisticalization, which is employed only as necessary. That he makes many rational and true statements only dresses up the rest of the stuff for church and dinner. I've stopped reading and replying to most of his postings. If I were to meet him privately I would not have a conversation, just make a polite remark and move on.

--Brant

I have no way of reading Adonis' mind, but if I could, I would bet good money that he cannot conceive of his religious belief being wrong. He believes in it because it is Right and True, or so he appears to think. I wonder if he has ever considered the notion of basing truth on a set of writings whose veracity cannot be determined here and how, an exercise in absurdity. The Holy Books of all religions and cultures (including mine) are story books. They cannot verified or vetted by any empirical means, here and now. In short they are a variety of fairy tale. From an epistemological point of view The Bible, The Gospels, The Q'ran and Tolkien's Silmarilion are on equal footing. They are all collections of stories.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Leonid]

Michael

"All such a person does when presented with facts is do like you just did, ignore them, then ask for facts as if they had never been presented."

And what about facts which I presented?

Michael

"Believe it or not, I have been able to get through to Adonis and establish common ground."

That I never doubted. Birds of feather fly together.

Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Leonid,

Let me remind you that this is my forum, not yours. I am permitting you to post your bigoted crap on it--up to a certain point. I will not permit you to post direct insults to me like you just did.

You have the rest of the entire Internet the world over to do that if that is what rings your ding-a-ling.

Future insults of that nature will be deleted.

(Note for clarity. I am not implicitly endorsing your spiteful view of Adonis by recognizing the insult you just presented me with.)

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael "Note for clarity. I am not implicitly endorsing your spiteful view of Adonis by recognizing the insult you just presented me with."

Then why you feel insulted? You described Adonis as honorable man with noble intentions. You have established common ground with him. So by no means my allusion that you could be similar to such a man should insult you. As a matter of fact you should feel proud, not insulted. I'm struggling to understand your logic.

Leonid

Edited May 24, 2010 by Leonid

[Brant Gaede]

Michael "Note for clarity. I am not implicitly endorsing your spiteful view of Adonis by recognizing the insult you just presented me with."

Then why you feel insulted? You described Adonis as honorable man with noble intentions. You have established common ground with him. So by no means my allusion that you could be similar to such a man should insult you. As a matter of fact you should feel proud, not insulted. I'm struggling to understand your logic.

Leonid

"Birds of feather fly together." You have thoroughly characterized the bird Adonis negatively. Into this matrix you have tossed Michael. Michael is not a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, etc. That is the smear and your Adonis thesis.

--Brant

struggle some more

Edited May 24, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sbeaulieu]

You have established common ground with him.

I wonder if you know what that common ground is...

Imagine, if you will, two circles. One circle represents Michael, the other Adonis. Common ground will see the two circles overlapping. The amount of overlap represents common ground. That overlap, from what I've read (Michael, correct me if I'm wrong) was the libertarian approach. What doesn't overlap is clearly uncommon/unknown ground. In my book, that does not constitute "birds of a feather flying together."

~ Shane

[Leonid]

You have established common ground with him.

I wonder if you know what that common ground is...

Imagine, if you will, two circles. One circle represents Michael, the other Adonis. Common ground will see the two circles overlapping. The amount of overlap represents common ground. That overlap, from what I've read (Michael, correct me if I'm wrong) was the libertarian approach. What doesn't overlap is clearly uncommon/unknown ground. In my book, that does not constitute "birds of a feather flying together."

~ Shane

Let me ask you the favorite Michael's question: are you mind-reader? How do you know what constitutes this overlap? Besides, where did you find libertarian approach in Adonis' posts? I'd like to see the reference. Simple statement: “I’m libertarian" won't do. For me is a bit difficult to imagine a libertarian who dreams about restoration of Salah-a-Din's glory by regional power (read Iran) who will conquer Israel as the kingdom of crusaders and transfer all Zionists to Germany. But this is just me.

[sbeaulieu]

Let me ask you the favorite Michael's question: are you mind-reader? How do you know what constitutes this overlap? Besides, where did you find libertarian approach in Adonis' posts? I'd like to see the reference. Simple statement: “I’m libertarian" won't do. For me is a bit difficult to imagine a libertarian who dreams about restoration of Salah-a-Din's glory by regional power (read Iran) who will conquer Israel as the kingdom of crusaders and transfer all Zionists to Germany. But this is just me.

Leonid,

My assumption was derived from here. The word libertarian is there. I won't argue with you about what constitutes a libertarian. I think that's different for us all, including which elements are more important to us. Adonis is in a unique situation (at least in my eyes) trying to find libertarian ideals with Islam. Tough task if you ask me. The Quran might preach benevolance. So does the Bible. It's on the reader that interprets the written message how they go about applying it.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have deleted a couple of Leonid's posts.

I would have deleted more, but people quoted him, so I didn't out of respect for them.

I will not debate my policy with Leonid.

I have stated it clearly. He accepts it or not, I don't care. It will not change.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Imagine, if you will, two circles. One circle represents Michael, the other Adonis. Common ground will see the two circles overlapping. The amount of overlap represents common ground. That overlap, from what I've read (Michael, correct me if I'm wrong) was the libertarian approach. What doesn't overlap is clearly uncommon/unknown ground. In my book, that does not constitute "birds of a feather flying together."

Shane,

This is exactly correct, with the observation that I believe Adonis shares my views on what constitutes good character, and at what point--at least at the extreme end of objectivity--a fact must be accepted. He has been receptive to the facts I have presented so far, when they have been given with proof, and I likewise to his. When we differ, it is usually on interpretations of those facts and how to handle them. Well, we also disagree on the metaphysics of religion, but he has not tried to convert me, nor have I tried to get him to abandon his religion.

You could ask him to make sure on all this. But I believe there is common ground there, too.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I've no doubt Adonis is a man of honor out of his own context. It's the context which is vexing. To say this guy is a man of honor and that guy over there is too says nothing about what's it all about underneath or whether there is an essential conflict between them. The great value of having Adonis here is drawing his context out of him with many illustrations which let's us better understand where people like him are coming from. If such people can't come here with their good manners OL is pretty much worthless. Even if they be one's mortal enemies they can't touch you with electrons. This means I would not trust Adonis to be my physical guide through Islamland; I may never come back; he may literally betray me by being true to himself.

Two men of honor met at Appomattox. One represented slavery, the other freedom. When the defeated general rode away the Union forces saluted him.

--Brant

my name ain't Dante

Edited May 25, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Leonid has decided not to stop with the direct insults, so rather than keep deleting his posts, I have moderated him for a while.

If he refuses to understand property rights correctly, he now has a concrete example to help with his concept formation.

I'll let through the stuff that is not directly insulting to me.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Leonid: Your bad manners towards Michael will get you moderated. How many times has he warned you? Here's the difference between you and Adonis: Adonis is a clear thinker while you throttle your brain with your war. It may not be bear-baiting on his part but the effect is the same. If you get moderated and he isn't who wins?

--Brant

edit: Michael just deleted two of Leonid's posts I responded to. I deliberately didn't quote Leonid because I knew he'd be deleted. Intelligent people being deliberately dense is a real turnoff.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

I just went over to SLOP after a small break from doing that and one of the first things I saw there was this:

I fight evil wherever I find it. I fought Adonis and Kelly on Objectivist living site as I fought many others like them on this site. Incidentally I don't post anymore on Objectivist living since I've been moderated and banned.

I wonder what really goes on in the heads of people like that. They certainly do not value precision. Here is what I wrote about this person's posting restrictions:

Leonid has decided not to stop with the direct insults, so rather than keep deleting his posts, I have moderated him for a while.

If he refuses to understand property rights correctly, he now has a concrete example to help with his concept formation.

I'll let through the stuff that is not directly insulting to me.

That's not a ban. It can't even be "interpreted" as a ban.

So, Mr. Leonid either practices a very sloppy form of rhetoric, has a horrible memory or he is a liar.

I suspect all three. But no matter what the case, my policy stands as I presented it. Nothing has changed.

I have been relieved, though, that he has stopped posting on his own. Let me tell ya', being a traffic cop in charge of a nonstop barrage of sloppy irrationality mixed with cherry-picked facts is a barrel of laughs. A person with Mr. Leonid's form of epistemology can only drag a discussion of ideas on a very difficult issue (like the Israel-Palestine issue) into the gutter of bigotry, whether he is a bigot or not. And trying to keep that from happening is not the easiest task I have ever set for myself.

A person needs to make a commitment to precision if he wants his ideas to be taken seriously on a forum like OL. Just mouthing off and trying to piss people off doesn't cut it. Ideas are serious. And so are the people who discuss them here. I intend to keep that spirit alive on OL.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think you missed his main point, Michael: you're "evil."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I see you posted over yonder about this.

Can you make any sense out of the response? Consistency looks like it's at a premium...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I see you posted over yonder about this.

Can you make any sense out of the response? Consistency looks like it's at a premium...

Michael

He thinks he's under the threat of coercion if he posts here. He addressed me as "Gaede," which reminded me of being in the army where everybody addresses each other that way as that's the name on the name tag. Also, he's intolerant of your intolerance toward intolerance. Maybe he's doing better with his arcane Kant discussion with Fred Seddon.

You must be happy to know he doesn't think you are "evil," which he battles, so though he battled you you get a separate category from Adonis, unless he too doesn't think Adonis is "evil," which I doubt. I used to battle evil, but everytime I ran it through with my sword it did no good. He should try the Atlas Shrugged technique of withdrawal--which I guess he did, here, so go and whither on the vine, Michael--no, wait! I forgot. You're not evil.

--Brant

I do this better with some whiskey in me

Edited July 4, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Alfonso Jones]

Heh.

I just went over to SLOP after a small break from doing that and one of the first things I saw there was this:

I fight evil wherever I find it. I fought Adonis and Kelly on Objectivist living site as I fought many others like them on this site. Incidentally I don't post anymore on Objectivist living since I've been moderated and banned.

I wonder what really goes on in the heads of people like that. They certainly do not value precision. Here is what I wrote about this person's posting restrictions:

Leonid has decided not to stop with the direct insults, so rather than keep deleting his posts, I have moderated him for a while.

If he refuses to understand property rights correctly, he now has a concrete example to help with his concept formation.

I'll let through the stuff that is not directly insulting to me.

That's not a ban. It can't even be "interpreted" as a ban.

So, Mr. Leonid either practices a very sloppy form of rhetoric, has a horrible memory or he is a liar.

I suspect all three. But no matter what the case, my policy stands as I presented it. Nothing has changed.

I have been relieved, though, that he has stopped posting on his own. Let me tell ya', being a traffic cop in charge of a nonstop barrage of sloppy irrationality mixed with cherry-picked facts is a barrel of laughs. A person with Mr. Leonid's form of epistemology can only drag a discussion of ideas on a very difficult issue (like the Israel-Palestine issue) into the gutter of bigotry, whether he is a bigot or not. And trying to keep that from happening is not the easiest task I have ever set for myself.

A person needs to make a commitment to precision if he wants his ideas to be taken seriously on a forum like OL. Just mouthing off and trying to piss people off doesn't cut it. Ideas are serious. And so are the people who discuss them here. I intend to keep that spirit alive on OL.

Michael

Michael, Michael ---

You're casting pearls before swine if you expect reform from Leonid. Don't expect a pork chop in return.

Bill P (smiling)