ethan_a_dawe

Michael: Also with all due respect, I think you are misrepresenting Ethan here. The point he brings up was the sentinel issue back then in those discussions, and apparently this was not understood by you. The argument that most of your opponents were trying to make was that a requirement by law that one individual be obligated to aid another in an emergency situation (e.g., Good Samaritan law) was wrong in and of itself. The arguments against your position back then were that: (1) it would violate the principal of individual autonomy by requiring that the personal context of the victim automatically supersede that of the one required to provide aid; (2) it would supplant the moral decision-making of each individual with an imposed rule, leading to both the erosion of moral development in some people as well as an increase in moral resentment against others in general; (3) there was no special legal categorization necessary for children. They were humans, and as such, they got the same protection of their rights as all humans, neither more nor less. You suggest that your attempt to try and discuss other issues at that time also yielded responses that were unflattering to Objectivism. As a participant in those discussions, I believe that almost all of the objections you received to those side issues related to what was perceived as an attempt to make an end-run around the legal issue noted above. The resistance you experienced to these attempts were principally due to to your failing to address the legal issue head on and offer a sufficiently well reasoned argument for your position - or conceding the point to your opponents and then moving on the the side issues. I must confess that I was perplexed at the time by your apparent failure to understand this, and I was somewhat angered by your wholesale moral condemnation of those of us who argued against what we perceived as a position based more on emotionalism than rational principles. Your statement that the legal issue was not part of the context of these other issues is simply incorrect. There are a few people who call themselves Objectivists that fit into Barbara's category of fundamentalist Objectivists, but the overwhelming majority of the people arguing with you back on RoR were not of this mold. As was said over and over, these individuals would be willing, by their own moral convictions, to aid others in emergency situations in most conceivable cases, so the case of the "abandoned baby" was just another example in a long, torturous history, where the emotionalism of a subject was attempted to be used to make another run around individual rights and personal autonomy and superimpose a universal rule of conduct of behavior on all people, regardless of context. I'm not interested in thrashing through this topic again in detail. But I thought it important to set the record straight. I do think that this is an important issue, but not for any of the reasons that have come to light in either the discussions here or on RoR. If one is to develop a well defined moral system which instructs one in how to make decisions and act (in a moral sense), then an examination of emergency situations by imagination can be a good way to test the limits of one's moral thinking and also aid one in being better prepared to act rationally and responsibly should one find oneself in such a circumstance. It can be a good thing to give some though to the issue of, in general, just how much aid one is willing to extend to others and at what personal cost. But this is a completely different issue from that of deciding what is and what is not proper territory for the government to impose legal obligations on its citizens. Regards, -- Jeff Thank you Jeffrey. Indeed the legal thrust was the central issue to my arguements and from my recollection, most of the other posters as well. Luke included. If Michael missed that in the quickly rising tide of epithet, it is unfortunate. While Jason Quintana was making the same point, he did enter into the discussion quickly and peppered his posts with swears and insults. That didn't help set the tone of the discussion and probably put Michael on the defensive. He had recently battled Michael over other things, but that tone is rarely helpful in having a serious discussion. I myslef have occasionally fallen into that trap and found myself later appologizing, not for my position, but perhaps my tone.

(emphasis added) (emphasis added) One of the oddest things about that thread's progression, Ethan, was the disjuncture between morality and law.** If there was universal agreement that the right and moral thing to do was to rescue the baby from exposure and death, and that a bad and immoral thing was to leave it to die, then WTF is the point in cursing and shunning those who hold that law should reflect basic, universal human values? In many minds, law (justice described) is a reflection of morality, a code of ethics made concrete. If evolution has given we humans emotional toolkits inclined to reject cheaters, reject theft, reject murder and unprovoked violence, and to be repelled by sociopathic actions -- then what are laws but a particularly human formalizing of the rules of thumb normal human beings live by? I note you took part in the slurring of humanity in that thread, not only accusing MSK of evasion and non-objectivity, but also playing "me too" with those who asked to be removed from membership at OL. [link]Hmmmm. So, you side with those who called MSK a 'pathetic piece of shit,' Ethan, and you ask that your OL membership be cancelled, as a result of MSK's contributions to the thread in question. Now you pop into this thread on MSK's list and show that you did not digest the particular posts that Barbara responded to. Whatever you 'beleive,' I covered the point you wished her to be reminded of -- and she acknowledged the context you pretend was missed ("morally and legally"). Ethan, why don't you pay attention, evince some integrity, put your money where your mouth is, and piss off? ** -- Setzer on law, morality and the "ick factor" William, I did just that. I also started to engage Michael in an email discussion after the fact about the heated debate, though we never finished it, which is my fault. I also followed his continuation of the discussion in threads later here. I came back after a time. In my discussion I told Michael that I didn't agree with Jason or any of us hurling epithets. Never-the-less, I didn't agree with what Michael was saying. At all. It wasn't right as I saw it. Michael doesn't seem to have a problem with me popping in now and again. You may, but I don't particularly care, given your habit of peeing on whomever you like. You are witty and funny at times, but I care not a bit for your evaluation of me. Save your breath. That said... As for the moral versus law point. The case of the babe in the woods is a decidely emergency situation. Sure, I would find anyone who happened upon the babe and ignored it for no good reason to be the vilest sort of sub-person. I would, however, not support a law that said that anyone MUST on pennalty of LAW help another. That isn't right. It's a non-issue however. I don't know of anyone who would avoid helping the child for any reason, Luke included, other than it directly threatening their own life, and that probably wouldn't stop 99% of people either. I doubt Rand would have had a problem with that either....unless you try to make it a law. I took issue with what Barbara said because, if you asked Luke if he would leave the babe in the woods he would say NO. He would also say that he is free to do it without fear of LEGAL action. I'm sure he would expect that IF he did ignore a lost bade in the woods that, despite not being legally subject, he would be ostracized from society to the point of not being able to enter a single local place of business or count on a single friend. THat would be the right reaction to someone who behaved thus. Morals relate to the self. It's is imoral to have mystical beliefs, becasue they are harmful. Should they be illegal too? HELL NO! Those are two very fine points. Barbara's statement is at best a misnunderstanding of his position, and at worse an out of context smear. I'm sure she can speak to that herself. I would encourage anyone who thinks that Luke is a fundamentalist baby killer or who wishes to know what Luke really thinks to ask him directly yourself. It is fortunate that he is easily available and still around so that you can safely get his side of the story. No need to rely on the words of another. :-)

Note that my reply above, was to this post by Barbara. I hit the button that replied to her post above it accidently. E.

I find it difficult to respond to this atrocity. Some things ought to be self-evident to civilized people -- hell, even to the uncivilized. This is precisely the philosophy -- this vast contempt for human life -- that made possible the hundred million innocent deaths in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China. Congratulations, Ba'al Chatzaf: you have captured the stance of these mass murderers exactly. If I shared any part of your mentality, which I do not, I would say that in justice it ought to be your baby who is one of the broken egg shells. Barbara I just want to remind Barbara that I beleive the context of that discussion on SOLO/RoR was whether there should be a law requiring one to rescue the baby. All involved seemed to agree that they would rescue the baby, but were almost all against the idea that they were obligated to do it, and legally punishable if they didn't. That context is everything, and leaving it out would make a lot of people appear to be monsters. I don't think we want to be doing that. Ethan

As I understand it, the DVD version I have is currentlyt he only one in release, so if you buy it you're sure to get that extra scene. It does add a bit of depth. I was always amused by their discussions..... Also, the comentary part is quite good. Street Walker: A token to protect you from evil? Subotai: I am evil!

I beleive he was a football player or wrestler. The riddle scene is good, in fact the entire opening is very well filmed. I noticed in the DVD version I bought it had an extended scene between Subotai and Conan before the battle of the mounds. I hadn't seeen it before as it's not on my VHS version. It was a nice addition. E.

That's true. That scene in particular is very good, especially the synergy of the visuals and the music. I suppose my last post gave the visuals/story too weak a praise. That's not fair as there are many subtle things to see and lots of good camera work. Consider the raid on Conan's villiage in the beginning, where young Conan is fishing and sees the approach of the raiders. How that is shot and scored is excellent. E.

The movie without the score would be just an ok revenge pick. Coupled with the Pouldouris score the movie becomes amazing.

Bob said: Well, I see your grip on reality is as loose as ever. I would never dream of suggesting you would ever actually agree that your drivel was accurately exposed for the nonsense it is. You'd have to be based in reality for that. Bob As I said, I'm comfortable with the full context of the discussion on RoR. Your judgement of it means little to me. Have a nice life. Ethan

Ooops, should post something on topic Congrats to Angie and Victor. Ethan

Bob, You make me laugh. I was never humiliated by you, and, for the record, I wasn't ever spanked by you. I encourage those interested in wasting their time to read up on our excahnges on RoR. As for me being arrogant and closed-minded, anyone who knows me and read what I've posted can make up their own mind on that. These are certainly not the characteristics that I'm known for. You are rude and abusive in most of your posts and tend to disregard any posts by others that show how your arguments are fallacious. Your record speaks for itself as well. I'll let those intested come to their own conclusions about your and your nature. I have mine, and from what I've seen here, they aren't changing from my previous view posted on RoR Ethan

My point is that we all choose who we wish to associate with in life. How we choose those assocaitions differs from context to context, or situation to situation if you will. Joe wants to promote activism and Objectivism, so he crates a site for doing that. He then decides that some of the people who come to his site are not adding value or are just plain rude so he moderates them. Some others offer some value but are, in his opinion, detracting from the main part of the site, so he moderates them to a specific section. The moderation is based on ideas and attitude. This is the same as you chosing in your life who you associate with. You are free to disagree with his evaluation of the individuals he chooses to associate with and you are free to associate with them. Calling this contrived is bogus in my opinion.

I would think so, but given your comment about "luciousness" I think it's valid.

Rich, Participation on RoR is voluntary. You admit Joe has the right to do what he's done, but you seem to see some conflict between his sated purpose and his actions. I don't see that conflict. IF there is a conflict, Joe's goals will suffer. Since people here apparently don't like Joe, and some have even called him a cult leader, I don't see the concern. Time will tell. Ethan

You don't have to answer my question if you don't want to. Ethan

I disagree.

My point, exactly! Actually you missed my point. Is there anyone in your life you choose not to associate with Rich? Ethan

Hey Rich, In our cult we just do what the boss says. To answer your question, I have no problem with this type of policy. If I owned a sight I may have a similar one. As far as the notice prior to establishment issue, if I had my own site I may have (may) announced it ahead of time. I think that would result in even more outcry. People would claim that it was an attempt to threaten people into adopting certain ideas, etc. Then you would have the outcry of people as they were moderated. Like I said, someone is going to be pissed no matter what. Ethan

There is nothing so curious about it. A policy was adopted on RoR that several posters here have had serious issues with. I simply came over to present information that I had and point out why I think there is nothing wrong with the new policy. You disagree and that's fine. Ethan

Are you really that dumb or are you just trolling here? Dragonfly, It's a conclusion that I'm drawing from what you said. That's why I'm asking you to clarify your position. No need to call me names. Ethan

Still no answer... How long shall we have to wait? Till the cows come home? It's a cult thing, you wouldn't understand.

You know the answer, so why the question? Yes, those members who agree with putting Ellen Stuttle on moderation while she protested against my banishment and who agree with banishing Jonathan while he doesn't agree with all the judgements by Rand and Rowlands about certain art works are cult members. For them strict adherence to the party line is apparently more important than the possibility of expressing an independent opinion. So cultist means someone who agrees with something you disagree with? Ethan

Dragonfly, So are you saying, anyone who agrees with the RoR moderation policy is a cult member? Ethan

By the way Michael, if you interpreted any of my posts to be suggesting that Jonathan's posts were in violation of an OL posting rules, that was not my intention. I was only referring to RoR. We all have different ideas about what is offensive, mean-spirited, dishonest, etc. Ethan

RoR is a website. So it cannot be a cult. Do you mean RoR managament is a cult or all the members of RoR are a cult, or just those members who agree with the new dissent moderation policy? Please clarify your statment so I can consider it properly. Ethan