Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

> Hsieh is rethinking her views,

Michael, she didn't say that in her comments in Amy P's blog...she said thanks for the well-expressed views even though we may still disagree. Where did you see her say what you said?

Phil,

That's easy, but you have to want to find out before engaging mouth. It's on her blog. It's put in standard Objectivist format for face-saving, but it clearly leaves the door open for reversing her opinion publicly later (although I still hold it's up for grabs). See here:

I'm grateful that Paul took the time to write the post below on the NYC mosque debate. I agree with his analysis completely, and I've found that it gave me a better perspective on the debate as a whole. While my views remain the same, I've got a better grasp of the merits of the opposing view. I hope that I'm not alone in that.

I'd like to see everyone involved in this debate take a step back and a deep breath. It's very much needed.

If that isn't rethinking her views, I don't know what is. Before the opposing views did not have such "merit" to her.

btw - The only one in a tizzy was her (and Peikoff in his podcast). All the other comments I read on both sides--at least up to that point--were calm.

Dennis (Ninth Doctor) got something right that you did not.

... MSK’s is not unfair speculation. What is unfair is to quote only the beginning of what he wrote, cutting out and ignoring the “crapshoot” part.

But I understand why you did that.

It's very hard not to make "rationalistic mistakes" when your thirst for pointing out the "rationalistic mistakes" of others in a schism-like environment gets to the tipping point.

Addiction is one thing I understand...

May I suggest the 12 steps? They sure helped me...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> the still ambiguous signs that a shift is on the way [ND]

Well, Peikoff is wrong and who cares who supports or disagrees so I don't have a dog in that fight.

But let's place our bets: My bet is that D. won't change her position, but she'll be polite and respectful and civil in disagreement. (Which is okay and generally a good policy - hardly sucking up.)

If I win, ND has to replace his avatar with a real, recent photo of himself for an entire week. If I lose, he only has to do it for three days.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Libertarian Muslim]

I'm not so surprised to see people like this are in the Objectivist camp, it kind of explains where Perigo gets his ideas from.. So are there different factions amongst Objectionists? Say the Objectionists and the Objectionables?

[Brant Gaede]

> the still ambiguous signs that a shift is on the way [ND]

Well, Peikoff is wrong and who cares who supports or disagrees so I don't have a dog in that fight.

But let's place our bets: My bet is that D. won't change her position, but she'll be polite and respectful and civil in disagreement. (Which is okay and generally a good policy - hardly sucking up.)

If I win, ND has to replace his avatar with a real, recent photo of himself for an entire week. If I lose, he only has to do it for three days.

If you lose you have to use the quote function--the next 100 times.

--Brant

Edited July 2, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Amy Peikoff is advocating a religious war by a secular state without understanding that's what the bad guys want and why they want it. They want to suck us in and, just as importantly, suck in as many Muslims as possible. The first results in the second. The terrorists are brokers.

--Brant

Edited July 2, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Martin Radwin]

Amy Peikoff wrote:

"As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — Islam — that declares war on us (the nonbelievers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them, regardless of whether our government has chosen to formally or explicitly declare war on anyone. This war is more than a cultural war, because this ideology explicitly advocates the use of force in order to propagate its ideas and way of life. Most importantly, in my view, a significant number of Islam’s adherents have acted according to its teachings, killing thousands of Americans. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of Islam’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers."

I decided, just for the fun of it, to rewrite this passage, from the perspective of a hypothetical Muslim living in the Middle East.

"As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — American exceptionalism — that declares war on us (the Muslim believers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them, regardless of whether our government has chosen to formally or explicitly declare war on anyone. This war is more than a cultural war, because this ideology explicitly advocates the use of force in order to propagate its ideas and way of life. Most importantly, in my view, a significant number of the American adherents have acted according to its teachings, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, through their brutal wars of aggression and through their imposition of crippling sanctions. The Americans have sent huge armies to occupy our lands, and they fly unmanned drones over our lands to terrorize and kill us. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of America’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers."

Of course, it would never occur to Peikoff or Hsieh that Muslims living in Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan could possibly feel this way. And if they did, it would just be a sign that they are a bunch of crazy savages. One thing that Peikoff, Hsieh, and their followers almost totally lack is any kind of empathy, any ability to see the world through the eyes of other people not of their tribe.

Martin

[DavidMcK]

Excellent Martin, makes the issue crystal clear. People who think of 'them vs. us' don't seem to be able to think in principles.

[Rich Engle]

People who think of 'them vs. us' don't seem to be able to think in principles.

Ain't that the truth. Even garden-variety secular humanists know better.

Reason, reverence for life, and tolerance. These three things work very well together--you don't have to compromise where it counts, but you don't end up being an effete ass-wipe, either.

We just got the wrong version intellectual heir, is all it was. We got the Nutty Professor, when what we needed was the fundamentally slicker, hipper, sexier version. We needed Buddy Love. Buddy Love would have handled so many situations that came up so much better. I mean, consider dealing with ladder-climbing cannibals like Hsieh--even in his advanced years, he would have known how to handle her. He probably would have dragged her off to a seedy Vegas motel, fouled her, and left her there panting for more. He would have left his black socks, wristwatch, and gold necklace on when he did it, too, not to mention making sure she paid the room service tab.

It would have All Been OK, then.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Rich Engle

[9thdoctor]

Peikoff said the government should "bomb it out of existence, evacuating it first," then mentioned Howard Roark as an afterthought. I think the implication was clear.

Obviously, you love to nitpick.

“Bomb” could mean a mail bomb (Unabomber), a truck bomb (McVeigh), it doesn’t have to be a dropped bomb like Hiroshima. He couldn’t possibly have meant a dropped bomb.

As to the nitpicking, I think there will be fundies so horrified by this latest rant from Peikoff that they will become more open to “switching sides”. The discussion on this thread could make a difference to them, and tip the balance. So I hope to see Peikoff’s argument not get distorted, and this is also why I chided Rich about making fun of the way Peikoff looks. Save that for the thread on Peikoff’s view of premature ejaculation or some other silly subject. FWIW I don’t think you tried intentionally to distort what he said, I think you just associate the word bomb with something dropped from an airplane.

[George H. Smith]

From Diana Hsieh's latest blog :

As you might recall, Leonard Peikoff clearly requested that he not be asked any further questions about the NYC Mosque in his recent podcast. I wanted to remind everyone of that, given that OCON starts tomorrow. For his sake -- and for the sake of a fun-filled OCON -- I ask that everyone respect his request.

To this day I cannot fully comprehend the mentality of the ARI crowd; it is as if they live in an alternate universe. Anyone who publicly advocates blowing up a mosque should be prepared to defend his remarks at a public conference. Hsieh is treating Peikoff like a delicate flower that might wilt under excessive heat.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

Quote

As you might recall, Leonard Peikoff clearly requested that he not be asked any further questions about the NYC Mosque in his recent podcast. I wanted to remind everyone of that, given that OCON starts tomorrow. For his sake -- and for the sake of a fun-filled OCON -- I ask that everyone respect his request.

Now she's sounding like his Press Secretary/Handler. "Please, no more questions for The Leonard until after the show."

"Fun-filled OCON." Okey-dokey. Meanwhile, there's probably a piece of her that wants him to stroke out on the podium. But, that might not be best for her. It's hard to untangle the dark web of mystery intrigue going with that pack of hyenas. Although, I will say that YB seems among the sanest.

I just don't see fundie O-ism doing well on the mass populus. But you never know--look at the Religious Right--they've survived all kinds of monkey-doings, and are still holding strong. People like being told what to think.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To this day I cannot fully comprehend the mentality of the ARI crowd; it is as if they live in an alternate universe. Anyone who publicly advocates blowing up a mosque should be prepared to defend his remarks at a public conference. Hsieh is treating Peikoff like a delicate flower that might wilt under excessive heat.

Geez George,

This ain't rocket science.

You make a bomb.

You evacuate the mosque.

You drop the bomb.

Simple.

...

Well...

You then say Ayn Rand made you do it.

And you want talk?

What's there to talk about?

(Now shut up, get down on your knees and obey!)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

From Diana Hsieh's latest blog :

As you might recall, Leonard Peikoff clearly requested that he not be asked any further questions about the NYC Mosque in his recent podcast. I wanted to remind everyone of that, given that OCON starts tomorrow. For his sake -- and for the sake of a fun-filled OCON -- I ask that everyone respect his request.

To this day I cannot fully comprehend the mentality of the ARI crowd; it is as if they live in an alternate universe. Anyone who publicly advocates blowing up a mosque should be prepared to defend his remarks at a public conference. Hsieh is treating Peikoff like a delicate flower that might wilt under excessive heat.

Ghs

Pathetics' pathetic.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

From Diana Hsieh's latest blog :

As you might recall, Leonard Peikoff clearly requested that he not be asked any further questions about the NYC Mosque in his recent podcast. I wanted to remind everyone of that, given that OCON starts tomorrow. For his sake -- and for the sake of a fun-filled OCON -- I ask that everyone respect his request.

Can you imagine Ayn Rand fearing being questioned about her views, or thinking that a conference would be "fun-filled" if people were being asked to avoid controversy and argumentation? Can you imagine her needing to be protected from the logic of novice students of Objectivism? Do you think she'd ask others to act for her sake, rather than their own, and dare not challenge her reasoning on a subject about which she just publicly gave her opinion?

To this day I cannot fully comprehend the mentality of the ARI crowd; it is as if they live in an alternate universe. Anyone who publicly advocates blowing up a mosque should be prepared to defend his remarks at a public conference. Hsieh is treating Peikoff like a delicate flower that might wilt under excessive heat.

Peikoff would wilt under heat, as would most of Objectivism's gurus, which is why they're such a cloistered bunch. They don't do well at defending their views out in the real world against intelligent criticism, and they know it. They're often good at publicly attacking the holes in others' positions, but they're horrible -- usually laughably so -- at dealing with anyone pointing out the holes in their own.

J

[Dennis Hardin]

Peikoff said the government should "bomb it out of existence, evacuating it first," then mentioned Howard Roark as an afterthought. I think the implication was clear.

Obviously, you love to nitpick.

“Bomb” could mean a mail bomb (Unabomber), a truck bomb (McVeigh), it doesn’t have to be a dropped bomb like Hiroshima. He couldn’t possibly have meant a dropped bomb.

As to the nitpicking, I think there will be fundies so horrified by this latest rant from Peikoff that they will become more open to “switching sides”. The discussion on this thread could make a difference to them, and tip the balance. So I hope to see Peikoff’s argument not get distorted, and this is also why I chided Rich about making fun of the way Peikoff looks. Save that for the thread on Peikoff’s view of premature ejaculation or some other silly subject. FWIW I don’t think you tried intentionally to distort what he said, I think you just associate the word bomb with something dropped from an airplane.

I’m not distorting anything. People don’t say “bomb it out of existence” when they are talking about mail bombs and truck bombs. They are talking about aerial bombing.

“He couldn’t possibly have meant a dropped bomb.”

Really? See Michael’s post above.

You make a bomb.

You evacuate the mosque.

You drop the bomb.

Simple.

Michael

Foolish nitpicking like this is a ridiculous waste of bandwidth, not to mention valuable time.

[9thdoctor]

(Now shut up, get down on your knees and obey!)

Like so?

People don’t say “bomb it out of existence” when they are talking about mail bombs and truck bombs. They are talking about aerial bombing.

Sez you. Nowhere did he say “airplane” or “drop” or any synonym for them. It’s pointless to belabour this further.

[Rich Engle]

The bombing thing:

What does it matter? Killing is killing. Now, I do think that LP likely means calling in air strikes. Apparently, if he were Commander-In-Chief, those guys would be in the air all the time. He talked hawk a lot in that CNN interview, too. Maybe he meant nuking. Whatever, apparently his parents didn't buy him enough little green soldiers or army toys when he was little, and it's catch up time.

When he said what he said about civilian casualties, it showed me a lot about the man's soul. Yes, we all know that war is not pristine (even with smart bombs, etc.). War means innocents will die. But what I get about it is his lack of mentioning how tragic, how regrettable it is for, say, women, children, old people, and common house pets to have their guts incinerated. He never seems to speak with a language of reverence for human life.

rde

[9thdoctor]

The bombing thing:

What does it matter? Killing is killing. Now, I do think that LP likely means calling in air strikes. Apparently, if he were Commander-In-Chief, those guys would be in the air all the time. He talked hawk a lot in that CNN interview, too. Maybe he meant nuking.

Air strikes in Lower Manhattan? Nukes? C'mon, he didn't say that.

[Rich Engle]

The bombing thing:

What does it matter? Killing is killing. Now, I do think that LP likely means calling in air strikes. Apparently, if he were Commander-In-Chief, those guys would be in the air all the time. He talked hawk a lot in that CNN interview, too. Maybe he meant nuking.

Air strikes in Lower Manhattan? Nukes? C'mon, he didn't say that.

No, no...of course not. What I mean is that in the CNN interview he was talking generally very hawkish as far as a military retort goes. He's got this genocidal warmonger side to him that I find repugnant.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, the government could fly airplanes into the mosque...

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Ed Cline has weighed in. Read his piece, and mentally substitute Catholic for Islam. The fundies are lining up behind Peikoff, I’m being proved wrong by the minute.

[Brant Gaede]

(Now shut up, get down on your knees and obey!)

Like so?

People don't say "bomb it out of existence" when they are talking about mail bombs and truck bombs. They are talking about aerial bombing.

Sez you. Nowhere did he say "airplane" or "drop" or any synonym for them. It's pointless to belabour this further.

He did say bomb Tehran. That'd have to be aerial. I think the allusion to Roark kinda implies he'd go in on the ground with the mosque thingy. As long as he thinks he's on the side of the righteous gods--the morality thingy--it's okay to go in with guns blazing--more than okay: it's a moral imperative and it's all about properly understanding Objectivism. As long as he's around I should go about saying "I'm an Objectivist, but I'm not insane"? Maybe I should simply say, "I'm a Jeffersonian liberal, but I don't own slaves."

--Brant

have to suggest that L.P. doesn't seem to know what he's talking about when it comes to what bombing really is--that's ignorance, the rest is nutso

Edited July 3, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to go on record on the mosque thing.

I mentioned that I am against the mosque being built near Ground Zero, but I do not want to be on record as agreeing to the following position: Those who hold to ideas I deem a threat cannot own property.

This is basically the principle being promoted by Peikoff & Co. They don't say it that way, but that's what it amounts to.

I think the people who live in any area have a full right to set zoning laws on any issue they deem important, just like anywhere else in the country. Building a mosque at that place at this point in time is something that can be properly barred--by those in the city, especially Manhattan. They are the ones with the recent memories and traumas and they have every right to give themselves time to heal.

After any act of war, you do not enshrine--at a place of massacre--symbols the enemy used, even if those symbols are not used in the same manner as the ones who want to enshrine them.

The reality is that 50 years from now, this will be a non-issue. But now it is. What's worse is that, if this goes forth as planned, it will result in some really bad violence. I feel that in my bones. Too many people judge this as an insult and a threat.

If I lived there, I would want to keep out something that would threaten peace to the extent building a mosque near Ground Zero--while using the 9/11 attack as a symbol--would.

But, after several decades, when the dust settles, as it always does, new arrangements could be made if Muslims found it important to have such a venue.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

There is no reason for Objectivists to clean up the neo-con mess which is the war on terror. Let the neo-cons deal with the damn mosque. Let Objectivists make money and love.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

It depends on the Objectivist. Some want rubble to clean up.

Michael