dan_edge

MSK, I read the entire Locke report today, along with Peron's article in Unbound. My conclusions on the issue (and regarding you personally) can be found here. Please delete my membership from your website. --Dan Edge

The PDF link for unbound at "http://jimperonunbound.bravehost.com/" doesn't seem to be working... *Correction @ 1:55pm: the Locke Report Link Works, the Unbound link seems not to. --Dan Edge

Last post on this comment: I just checked SOLO for the first time in a while to see what you were talking about. Pergio hasn't changed at all! If anything, he's gotten more poetically malevolent than ever before. You'll have to work hard to match that degree of vitriol, MSK. --Dan Edge

MSK, I don't follow SOLO any more. Maybe you shouldn't either; maybe that's what's driving you up the wall! --Dan Edge

MSK, I don't have the energy for a marathon debate here. Nor do I care much about the issue, I just saw something I thought unusual and commented on it. Suffice to say that your style of defending Peron does more to incriminate than exonerate. My advice: either present all relevant evidence or delete everything. All this referencing to secret information, which is no longer available publicly, but which you have, and which you may share, but which you don't want to post too much about here so the "hate-mongers" can't sink their teeth in. It all seems so damned conspiratorial. And your style of argumentation has grown more and more the splitting image of Perigo's. Presumptuous psychologizing and constant character attacks on presumed (imagined) motives -- this in place of polite and reasoned argument. Maybe take a break from all this? It's getting to you... --Dan Edge

MSK, Why not delete my mess, and post Unbound? Let everyone judge for himself. Since when is the buttocks not a "private part?" When next we meet, can I cop a feel on you down there? Can I touch your wife down there? I mean, c'mon, splitting hairs. And accusing your dissenter of lying, as usual. Lord, MSK, have you gotten older and grumpier too? Seems to be going around. I don't think I've ever seen you respond to the whole "boy lover" defense Peron puts in the article. Isn't that there, or am I remembering it wrongly? Isn't it important? In any case, I don't need to know all the detail's of the man's private life, nor pass judgment on him personally, to decide that there's good reason to scrutinize a *public figure* who wrote this kind of thing. Note: I never said that Peron's a bad man, ought to be railroaded, kicked out of country, nothing like that. Maybe so, but I don't know enough about the situation. I said he deserved to be *seriously scrutinized*. He was. --Dan Edge

Uh...what? Your rude sniping has gone over my head. I have no idea what you're talking about, but I presume you're trying to make some personal issue (probably from years ago) a public issue in the interest of dishonestly attacking my character. Were you always this much of a punk, Jef? If so, I forgot. Maybe you've just gotten older and grumpier. In any case, I wouldn't recommend speaking to me in such a way in person. Feel free not to respond to any more of my pontifications; and certainly make no attempt rationally to dissect what I'm trying to say. I'll return the favor. Wow, I'm never this sarcastic, you really know how to bring out the best/worst in a man, Jef. Bravo! --Dan Edge

Sorry, Jef, was I pontificating (def. expressing opinions in a pompous and dogmatic way)? Am I positioning myself as oh so knowledgeable about Perron's trials and tribulations? I don't think so, Jef, but you're welcome to your own opinion. A simple, polite correction would have sufficed. Misspelling of names may be intensely irritating to you, but unnecessarily rude behavior is intensely irritating to me. I do not abide by it. I suggest you go hang out with Perriggo, where you will find your malevolent attitude more in tune with the company. --Dann Edgee

Jonathan, I don't have many strong opinions about age of consent laws except that they should exist in some form. A 4-year-old, for instance, cannot rationally consent to sex. And this consent can't be delegated to parents. The law's got to draw the line somewhere. Where? That's more of a technical legal question which I am not qualified to answer. Age 16 makes sense, maybe younger, maybe as high as 18, though that would be pushing it. But that issue in completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: Was Perron smeared? Did he deserve the scrutiny and the criticism? I am surprised that four pages of discussion have gone on here without specific reference to Perron's article about "boy love." I know you mentioned it in passing, MSK, but the contents of that article are crucially relevant to this discussion. I assume that this article is one of the "secret documents" you have available that you don't want to publish here. If it doesn't in any way incriminate Perron, then why not publish it? But it does incriminate him, at least in spirit. I don't remember the entire contents of the article, but here are some things I remember: Perron was abused as a child in some capacity. While still a child (exact age unspecified) some men taking care of him -- counselors, baby sitters, I don't remember -- would reach inside his clothes and caress his private parts. This made him feel good, emotionally safe, happy, etc. He argues that these "boy lovers" were a great benefit to his psychological health. "Boy lovers" should be honored, not hated. The end. Does this not seem like relevant information in evaluating Perron? Or his involvement with pro-NAMBLA writers? This is no smear job, this is what Perron himself wrote and published. If I've got the facts wrong please let me know, but I'm pretty sure I remember this correctly. I was shocked back then, and am still shocked today, that groups of people defend Perron to the hilt without reference to these crucially relevant facts. MSK mentioned earlier in this thread that no one had emailed him privately requesting his "secret files." If you want to set the record straight, dude, just post it all here. We're not talking about personal correspondence; again, this is an article Perron wrote and published himself. --Dan Edge

Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing? He was promoting the beauty of "boy love" for Chrissake! I don't know enough about the issue to pass judgment, but clearly Perron was begging for punishment. He wrote a pro-"boy love" article, along side other writers with long pro-NAMBLA affiliations, all of which he published in a NAMBLA-sympathetic journal, published under his own printing company, with at least one meeting held on his own property. Those facts do not a pedophile make, but aside from getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar (so to speak), what else could he do to deserve good helping of hell? I feel bad for the guy if he's got psychological damage resulting from childhood abuse, including sexual abuse, but he was clearly taking that in a dangerous public direction, and should have been called on it. And he was. What's the problem? That Perigo did the calling, and exaggerated everything as he always does? Sure he did, but it doesn't change the fact that Perron had it coming from someone in some capacity. --Dan Edge

Brant, I read that there have been conflicting reports about the Unknown Rebel, and that it hasn't been confirmed what happened to him. But I think I got that info from Wikipedia, so take that for what it's worth. Joel, Your denunciations only feed my fanaticism. Huzzah! :super: --Dan Edge

Jonathan, I can't speak for the Moderators at Objectivism Online, but I don't blame them for banning you. Of the 3 initial posts you made on Objectivism Online, all were criticisms of Rand. It appeared that your only purpose in commenting on their forum was to bash Rand, goad others that you have predetermined to be rationalistic Rand-worshippers, then stomp off afterwards, decrying the injustice of your banishment. Based on your comments here, I'd say that the Objectivism Online Moderators were spot-on in their judgment of your motives. This was a self-fulfilling prophecy, Jonathan. You went to Objectivism Online looking for trouble, and found it. If you find it unpalatable that others would question your motives like that, then what does it say about you to make a blanket statement about these folks "protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism?" You've been making very public claims like that for a long time. When you talk trash about people, they're not going to want you on their forum. Though I don't contribute much, I like the crowd at Objectivism Online. And when you make accusations like the ones above, I take it personally. I'm the kind of person you're talking about. Me and my friends. It's not like you hurt my feelings, but I hope you see how offensive your comments come off. --Dan Edge, Proud Defender of Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism P.S. Check out my blog for evidence of my fanatic rationalism! - http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/

This was an excellent interview. Kelly and I enjoyed it very much. Kelly especially was inspired by your story. I'd love to see Lovers Jumping when it's complete. The studies look fantastic. Best, --Dan Edge

Greetings, Several months back, I wrote a 6-part draft on "The Psycho-epistemology of Sexuality." I aimed to prove this ambitious thesis: "The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integration of individuating elements of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship." I never got around to re-editing, but in the mean time the draft can be found here. --Dan Edge

Michael, You are correct that my comments were "for the record" and that I did not (and do not) intend to engage in polemics. Thanks for your comments. --Dan Edge

Barbara Branden writes: “I think you underestimate the pressures that go with the package. I would never suggest to a young person that he or she go to ARI for instruction in Objectivism. The pressures are not merely "us against them" -- which is relatively harmless in view of the infinitely more dangerous and destructive pressure to become a true believer, convinced that all wisdom resides with Rand and ARI and that wisdom is to be found nowhere else. This, plus many of the ideas that are part and parcel of the ARI teachings … make ARI a source of instruction to be avoided like the plague. … The ARI ideal and the proof of its success is the student who thinks it unnecessary to read, because he already knows everything worth knowing, who finds it unnecessary to expose his convictions to challenges and debate, because those who disagree with him do so only because they are evil, who does not grasp what it would mean to respect someone who does not agree with him, who is narrow, pedantic, insulated from reality which he sees only through a fog of floating concepts, who is cold, dogmatic, hypercritical and obsessed with the evil of most of the world.” Robert Campbell writes: “I agree with Barbara that the Ayn Rand Institute is not a good place for students to learn about Objectivism. Not only because of the religious atmosphere (complete with monitoring for deviationism, and suspicions about heresy), and the sharply delineated hierarchy of authority figures to whom deference is constantly due. Also because much of what is taught is Leonard Peikoff's interpretation of Ayn Rand, to the exclusion of interpretations by others who knew and worked with her, or by others who didn't know her, but have made a careful study of the Randian corpus.” ------------------------ As a student finishing out my sophomore year at the Objectivist Academic Center, I must say that the OAC bears no resemblance whatsoever to Ms. Branden’s or Mr. Campbell’s descriptions. I assert that their opinions are based on the number of classes they have taken with the OAC (zero), and that the value of those opinions ought to be weighed accordingly. One is never asked about his “allegiance” or pressured to join (or not to join) certain groups. There is no loyalty oath on the application, no interrogation before admission. The issue is never brought up. (If there were any “monitoring for deviationism,” I might have been asked about the fact that I am disallowed membership to the HB List, that I am a member of the Atlasphere, that I openly criticized Peikoff’s statement about the election, that I am unclear about the issue of Sanctioning the Sanctioner Sanctioners, or even that I post here from time to time.) The first class does not advocate Objectivism directly, but instead introduces students to important questions in the history of philosophy. The next two classes focus on improving writing skills. I’m now taking the Seminar on Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Objectivism (SARPO). In the first lecture, Dr. Ghate stressed the importance of avoiding a rationalistic approach to learning Objectivism (he spent 3 hours on this). He explained how he was going to continually challenge us to think independently, to take an inductive approach, and to come up with our own answers and examples. Interactive discussion takes up a large portion of each class. There has never been any “pressure” to become a “true believer.” Exactly the opposite – students are encouraged to raise challenges and objections in class, and the professor does an excellent job of addressing these in a professional manner. No one is ever berated or publicly chastised. I probably raise more questions that anyone else, especially about Dr. Ghate’s approach: “Why are you bringing this point up first instead of that?” “Why do you focus on this so much? I don’t see why it’s important.” “I don’t know that I agree with how you conceptualized that,” etc. As always, Ghate deals with my questions in a deliberate, professional manner, then gives me the opportunity to respond. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t, but I’m always satisfied about the quality of the engagement. This is not to imply that the professor doesn’t present a well-organized, hierarchically structured view of Objectivism’s major tenants. He most certainly does. But his presentation is infused with questions and challenges to encourage open student discussion. Branden’s and Campbell’s descriptions of the OAC are so off the mark, I’m truly baffled. I won’t venture to question their motives – all I can do is state definitively that, based on my experience, they are 100% wrong. --Dan Edge

There's an option to "Report Inappropriate Post," which I did. Good job, Meetup. --Dan Edge

Here's a new one -- Murray Rothbard: ------- Victor Pross, Post #127 of This Thread "The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction – a world of faceless and identical creatures--devoid of all individuality, variety, uniqueness or special creativity. The horror we feel at these stories is the appreciation that men are not uniform, that the species is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation--in short, inequality...The great fact of individual difference and variability (that is, inequality) is manifest from the long record of human experience. An egalitarian society seeks to realize its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion. Murray Rothbard, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature "The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction – a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity...The horror we all instinctively feel at these stories is the intuitive recognition that men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion...The great fact of individual difference and variability (that is, inequality) is evident from the long record of human experience..." Victor Pross, Post #127 of This Thread "...fantasies at the root of the Marxian utopia of communism. Freed from the imaginary confines of specialization and the division of labor—this being heart of any production above the most primitive level and hence of any civilized society--the idea is that each person in the communist utopia would fully develop all of his powers in every direction. Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring: “communism would give each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions." And Lenin: "abolition of the division of labor among people...the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it." Murray Rothbard, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature "...fantasies are at the root of the Marxian utopia of communism. Freed from the supposed confines of specialization and the division of labor (the heart of any production above the most primitive level and hence of any civilized society), each person in the communist utopia would fully develop all of his powers in every direction.17 As Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring, communism would give "each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions."18 And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the "abolition of the division of labor among people...the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it."" ------------- I'm sure there's more, but I'm done for the day. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Pross steals from various people's posts on this SOLO Passion Thread in an attempt to gain credibility here. ------------- Victor Pross, Post #52 of This Thread "For me, talent can be said to be a “raw material” that can be honed when one consciously decides to become a craftsman of these materials." Jennifer Iannolo, Post on Solo Passion 'Talent' Thread "For me the analogy is that of raw materials being honed when one consciously decides to become a craftsman of said materials." Victor Pross, Post #52 of This Thread "There is no question that we are born with certain innate abilities, and I've come to understand that Rand was particularly referring to conscious thought with her tabula rasa proclamation. Of course, it's what we choose to do with those abilities that determine our course." Jennifer Iannolo, Post on Solo Passion 'Talent' Thread "To me there is no question that we are born with certain innate abilities, and I've come to understand that Rand was specifically referring to conscious thought with her tabula rasa statement. Of course, it's what we choose to do with those abilities that determines our course." Victor Pross, Post #52 of This Thread "Knowledge begins with sense experience--but there's nothing to say that different capacities can't be innate." Penelope, Post on Solo Passion 'Talent' Thread "Knowledge begins with sense experience. But now talent, there's nothing to say that different capacities can't be innate" Victor Pross, Post #52 of This Thread "...I understand that there is both a cognitive and a physical aspect to music that form sensitivity to pitch, meter, and rhythm. Such a person can take these sensitivities and utilize them to improvise or imitate musical ideas. The sensitivities themselves are the raw talent, the “raw material.” Their utilization is essentially mental capacity. Of course the application of training serves to improve both." Adam Buker, Post on Solo Passion 'Talent' Thread "In music there is both a cognitive and a physical aspect to music that form a sensitivity to pitch, meter, and rhythm. Such a person like myself can take these senitivities and utilize them to improvise or imitate musical ideas (this is true of trained and untrained musicians alike). The sensitivities themselves are the raw talent. Their utilization is essentially mental capacity. The application of training serves to improve both." --------- This is morbidly humorous because, later in that same post, Pross recounts a story of "a friend of [his]" who had a talent for music. That "friend" was Adam Buker, who Pross had just plagiarized. The story itself is also mostly cut-and-pasted: --------- Victor Pross, Post #52 of This Thread "There is a friend of mine whose mom has told him that since infancy, whenever music was being played, he would pay attention--very keenly. When he was around two years old, his family took him to a wedding of a relative where the wedding march was played. The next day he was playing the wedding march on a little toy keyboard. It was amazing. Ability wasn't the right word to use, but from the beginning he exhibited great sensitivity to music." Adam Buker, Post on Solo Passion 'Talent' Thread "My mom has told me that since infancy, whenever music was being played, no matter what I was doing, I would pay attention. When I was around two years old, my family took me to a wedding of a relative (it was the first wedding I had ever been to). The next day mom hear me playing the wedding march on a little toy keyboard someone bought me as a present. Ability wasn't the right word to use, but my mom and dad have made clear to me that from the beginning I exhibited great sensitivity to music." --------- --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

I understand why Laure is hurt and angry by this, after seeing Pross writing things to her like this (from post #2): "Laure, I suppose you got the strong leads I was giving on the ethics thread to direct the conversation to this very same question." The "strong leads [he] was giving" were from articles which contained wholesale plagiarism. Laure was engaged in conversation with a variety of different people: George Smith, "Ayn Marx", Max Moore, Luke Setzer -- everyone but Victor Pross, with whom she thought she was dealing. Many others at OL had the same experience. After over 2,000 posts from Pross, I can see how that would piss people off. --Dan Edge

And that was Pross's last post on this thread. What a finisher! --Dan Edge

Even teeny tiny posts are injected with plagiarism. Victor Pross, Post #354 of This Thread "The common fallacy is to equate tautology with circular reasoning. It’s not the same thing: circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology likens a thing to itself." Gary McGath, Review of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things "Also, he equates tautology with circular reasoning. But these are different; circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology equates a thing to itself." ------------- --Dan Edge

The plagiarism of "Ayn Marx" is recycled again (and at length) by Pross is Post #269. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. The post you mentioned is a plagiarism of Ronald E. Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand. As noted elsewhere, "Ayn Marx" is also a plagiarist of Ron Merrill.)

Victor Pross, Post #233 of This Thread "Medicine, as the example went, prescribes a set of actions that must be taken in order to preserve or to reinstate health. A doctor prescribes what ought to be done and this must be based on objective knowledge." Elsewhere Attributed to George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God "Medicine, for instance, prescribes those actions that must be taken in order to preserve health. A doctor prescribes what ‘ought’ to be done, but this prescription, to be valid, must be based on objective knowledge..." -------- I guess Pross just steals from whatever he happens to be reading at the time. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

But there's more! More cribbing from Mr. George Smith, that is.: Victor Pross, Post #229 of This Thread “Man has the capacity for choice, and whether a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, an ought-judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved.” Elsewhere Attributed to George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God “Man has the capacity for choice, and whenever a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, an ought judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved” --------------- --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)