sjw

"He grants that nature gives us physical and mental capacities, but he avoids stating the obvious: nature does not grant her gifts equally in the physical realm—and he avoids it because that would draw too attention to the fact that nature does not in the mental realm either." I didn't state the obvious because it was the obvious. Obviously people are born with dramatically different potentials or capacities. No, actually, I have stated this obvious point already, so Victor is lying. The issue is that Victor does not grasp the talent/capacity distinction I was trying to make; he's deaf, blind, and dumb to the distinction. On top of that he does not listen, he expends zero effort to comprehend the points of his adversaries, so he will never grasp the distinction. On top of that, his lack of basic respect and civility is apalling. If he was a decent person, he'd think "maybe I don't fully understand Shayne's point" (particularly since I've repeatedly told him he didn't) and give me some measure of benefit of the doubt and maybe expending a tiny bit of effort to comprehend, instead of incessantly attributing dishonest motives and prancing about stepping all over my words while he pretends he can speak for me. Note to the inevitable moronic retort that I'm insulting Victor while objecting to his insulting behavior: Victor's behavior is not based in any sort of rational principle, it is wholly unjustified, it is pure irrationality; what I'm doing is calling a spade a spade. There's a huge difference. If you don't see the difference, then take the implied insult with my compliments.

Thanks Michael. I agree, it *is* hillbilly racism. That sort of thing has a long and rich history in Objectivist circles; "some others" are just copying the behavior, contributing in style, but not in substance.

Victor, I neither agree with you nor with the pathetic straw man you've built up and scrawled the name "Shayne" on. All you just demonstrated, again, is that all you can do with regard to my comments is misinterpret them. Yes, I can explain the kid, no I will not explain to you. And that makes me intellectually dishonest in your book--so again you lump things into wrong piles. What philosophy was it that you held again? It certainly doesn't resemble Ayn Rand's. With her philosophy, we group things by essentials, not by Victor's whim.

Michael: Thank you. Victor: No I have nothing else to add, except that I disclaim your interpretations of what I say as usually being irresponsible distortions that are a waste of my time to correct. So, since you chose to wrongly lump two totally different people into the same pile, in your philosophy, your mistake becomes my fault. Shayne

Speaking of "talking through your ass"--I never said that wonder kids were a product of high-pressuring parents nor did I comment on it being foolish nor did I ever say anything resembling either of these remarks. Michael doesn't like plain and direct speaking going on in his "living room", while he lets total fabrication and lies and continued insults get slung at a "guest" who prefers to remain silent pass without comment. You both owe me an apology.

No, actually. Spent 15min one time throwing up a forum on the request of a friend just to demonstrate how easy it was; other people decided my intent was to make yet another Objectivist forum. We rambled on a bit and then I shut it down. My real thoughts on this were that the technology isn't good enough yet to support the kind of forum that would be acceptable to a true Objectivist. I'll abide by your wishes but the only way I can do that is to not post. Shayne

And I thought by saying that this view you dreamed up for me was silly I meant that I don't think that. If you can't see that as answering your question you're thick. Shayne

Does it have to be either-or? :poke: There's nothing nasty behind my intent, but I do think you are waffling, trying to have your cake and eat it too. Shayne

Since my questions exclusively concerned getting Victor to clarify whether what I thought he was saying was what he actually was saying, there's no way to answer your question without talking about what I thought he was saying. Victor's initial post was about what I thought of caricature as an art form. I said it was a lesser art but a valid pursuit. Then he and Rich started calling me snobby. Michael kinda sorta seems to agree, because he's denies my entire point (while seeming on some undefined level to agree with me, sorta): that there's a hierarchy here. Shayne

Hint: Making a joke out of something doesn't make it go away. For my part I've not yet decided that Victor is evading. I know that he suspiciously hasn't answered my question 3 times in a row. It is interesting that you concluded that he was doing what I haven't concluded yet. But, you do know him better than I do. You and he have a lot in common.

Michael you missed your calling. You should have been a politician. A heart vs. *4* limbs? Do you think that maybe that isn't the most honest comparison? Maybe a heart vs. 1? Certainly caricature art can't count as 4 whole limbs! Heck, even 1 whole limb. Maybe the tip of my pinky finger. Not even that much.

You've got a lot of presumption to keep asking me new questions while refusing to answer questions I've repeatedly put to you.

Do you think that anyone in this thread was implying that humor is bad or that Rand had none? That's the whole problem. You and Victor are trying (and failing rather miserably) to pretend that the alternative to your viewpoints is to be humorless. Shayne

Interesting comment to make on an allegedly pro-Ayn Rand board.

Your penchant for humor is blinding you. No Victor, I don't hold the silly premise you just dreamed up for me. But how about you answer the question I put to you before: "For you, a caricature artist can in principle be an equivalent artist to Michaelangelo or Ayn Rand?" Shayne

You certainly seem to want me to be saying that or saying that humor is tawdry. And it would certainly make me an easier target. But that is not what I actually said. So for you, concretizing the ideal man is an equivalent order of art as caricature? For you, a caricature artist can in principle be an equivalent artist to Michaelangelo or Ayn Rand? Is that the reason for the Leonardo tie-in, to try to imply that since he was a great artist, then all his art was great in this respect? Shayne

I am not sure I get your meaning. I don't think you are being clear. You seem to be saying that it's snobbery to say that humor is subordinate to other artistic purposes. But evoking passion for something important is surely a higher purpose than evoking laughter. You seem to be trying to lump everyone who does not subscribe to your view as humorless instead of facing the point I made. If so, the only person you'll convince with that technique is yourself. Shayne

I haven't given it much thought. But here's a few thoughts off the top of my head. On one level all that matters is whether it's valid or not (I think it is). It does not matter whether it's a "lesser" art form in some sense; it is a creative activity that demands intelligence, skill, insight to do the best job at it. The same could be said for cartoon strips. So--if you are trying to say that it matters whether caricature is a lesser art form in some sense, I disagree with that, it doesn't matter on the level of "is this a worthy pursuit". It's a worthy pursuit, it can be done with intelligence, taste, skill, insight, and can be admired on those terms. On the other hand, I do regard it as lesser art, in the sense that it does not address the deepest reason why we need art. It is a peripheral, optional art form. It does not deserve to be ranked on the same level as The David, Atlas Shrugged, or The Geographer. There is nothing any caricature artist can do that would inspire a human being on the deepest levels such as these works can. Caricature art can be insightful, witty, intelligent, funny, sarcastic--but it can't be profound, it can't be spiritual fuel. Shayne

I take that to mean that you're going to stop trying to get me to leave off the "edge"? Yes, I would appreciate it if I could make a point around here without having someone get on their soapbox about "Orthodox Objectivists" and how nasty they are. For my part, I prefer an "edge" to the incessant self-righteous and preachy admonitions that I change myself into what you all fancy yourselves as having become. If you're in a happy place, good for you. So am I, I like being direct and saying what I think. So let's all be happy and "live and let live." I won't complain about how "nice" you all are (if preaching at me can be called "nice") if you don't complain about my "edge". Shayne

Anyone feel less safe now that the Democrats are in power? Iran is definitely emboldened by the recent election results. Shayne

Ironic, since the thing you quoted me on *was* asking Victor for an interpretation other than the only ones I could imagine. And neither he nor anyone else has given a reasonable alternative explanation for why he so blatantly disregarded the facts there. If you want to claim that I've formed a judgment about Victor on the whole on the grounds that in this one instance I can't fathom the reason for his illogical statement, well that's more a reflection of how you form judgments about people than how I do. I don't know what you *mean* to do, I am just observing what you *are* in fact doing. You *did* in fact call me hostile (and then were put off when I responded in a hostile manner to that bogus accusation); and you have *repeatedly* misrepresented my statements. If you don't mean to act this way, then perhaps you are simply making mistakes, except if that were the case I'd expect an apology and retraction, not lectures. Shayne

And another thing. I don't know Victor. I haven't formed a conclusion about him as a person. He initiated the insults against me in the Talent thread and if I gave him a little jab here by quoting "art" and his own words I think he deserved it. But he didn't make a big deal about it and my jab was extremely little. It is Rich and Michael who are blowing this all out of proportion and they should just knock it off. As far as my criticisms of Einstein and that eyeball thing, it's what I think. I'm open to discussing why that is, but I'm not open to your tacit idea that it's rude for me to say what I think. If you guys (Rich & Michael) don't like the turn this thread has taken then look no further than the mirror. I've been wanting to get back to the subject since Rich started this stupid tangent. Shayne

You wrote "Have you ever tried to explain a joke to a hostile person?" If you mispoke, fine, say so, but don't blame it on me misreading you. So, it's wrong for me to object to you misrepresenting and attacking me? If you'd just lower your weapons and quit misrepresenting me, I'd be happy to stop talking about it. But I won't stand by while you attack and misrepresent. And here we go again with the misrepresenting. Where did I give a negative appraisal of Victor? Because I only recall talking about a *very small subset* of his work (as that's all I've seen). Maybe you just don't get it, or can't do it, or disagree. I've asked you several times to stop guessing at what I think. I don't like having the burden of correcting you when I never asked you to speak for me, and I don't like having your misrepresentations go without answer. But even leaving that aside your remark here is ignorant. I have offered my thoughts on caricature for one thing. So I *have* offered more than mere criticism of some of Victor's work. *Again*, we see you making a sweeping judgment regarding me that is obviously wrong. Again: I don't like this sort of thing any more than you, but I won't stand by while you attack and misrepresent me. You are the one wasting my time, but you paint me as if I'm the one wasting time. It's ridiculous. Please stop. The only reason this goes on and on is because you won't admit your mistake, and you keep making it over and over, and I'm not willing to let you off the hook while you continue to pretend that it's my fault. Shayne

Right... Well if you weren't, then you should have used some strong qualifications, because what you wrote sure looks like it was a response to what I said. Again with the insults. What's baffling is that you make a big deal about me saying what I think because you find it insulting, and then you engage in blatant insults. It's interesting too that my comments are usually targeting the particular thing that was said, whereas you engage in sweeping character attacks. My remarks might be sweeping, but they are usually about the *idea*, your sweeping remarks are about the *person*. As for the rest of your post, your implication that I'm unwilling to examine my value judgments is ludicrous. Shayne

You didn't say that. You said I was a "hostile person". Shayne