Tony

Isnt' she a lonely old-lady? Having seen Jonathan many times become extremely reasonable when his requests for information are met with information instead of hostility, even after a session of mutual hostility with a poster, I disagree with this. That was my experience, also, ....somewhat.

Heh. If I'm remembering correctly, the "Hseikovians" used similar excuses to the ones that Pigero and pals are using for avoiding answering my Turandot Challenge -- that it wasn't presented respectfully enough, that those avoiding answering it were too discerning and busy to jump through hoops and answer irrelevant questions, etc. J Jonathan, I don't know whether you remember me or not, but I fully emphasize with your experience.

Michael, I agree with your views above.

...and I thank for your articulate answer. This finally satisfies my rather rigorous standard, (some might call it "pedantic",..). Still woulda been classy if Ed himself replied the way you replied. He doesn't need to be shy.

I just read your post above, so this is no longer relevant.

Hey, this is like a re-union so many posters I used to deal with at Greg's blog. Don't you feel sorry for them? I think I remember Perigo way back at Greg's blog. Not much of a thinker. He tried to attack me lamely, which I dodged with no sweat. She used to be a regular at Greg's blog, didn't like my style and (I think) tried to get me removed, but failed. I think her purpose is to tell people how many VIPs she knows and how many books she's read to be admired as an intellectual. He conversed with me once when I first started posting at Greg's blog, in a sense, I think he's like me. He's kinda intense and tends to ask profound and pertinent questions in a very direct way. Even though he was my opponent at the time, and pretty intense and aggressive one at that, he was fair. His questioning forced me to give the longest and the most detailed answer I gave to a person I think is an Objectivist. Btw. It was about morality. I think he posted every now and then at Greg's blog, didn't talk too much. One of the semi-regular poster, at Greg's and a pretty good thinker. I think I gave him a very hard time once or twice at Greg's (but not in a bullying way) Smart in a tactical sense, didn't talk too much at Greg's blog in a way to leave himself vulnerable to counters. If I remember him correctly, I think I gave him a very hard time once at Greg's blog. (But no bullying) What's the answer? Btw. Greg Nyquist's blog is dedicated to exposing Objectivist "fallacy". Sometimes I agreed with Greg, sometimes with a few claiming to be Objectivists, which kinda pissed Greg off. (He thought I was on his side.) I was seeking the best correlation I can find between various proposed "causes" and "effects". Neither necessarily for "Objectivism" nor against "Objectivism".

If you choose to be a lesser human being you can, but I would not recommend that course of action. So it doesn't according to your moral standard? Would have liked the movie better if Mel restrained himself on the gore parts.

Adam, When I get careless with words, I always try to acknowledge (especially when pointed out). When I misunderstand the others' words, I always try to acknowledge. Does this make me lesser of a human being?

So you did get careless? Why do you assume that I am necessarily in opposition? I merely asked you to clarify your misused (I think) words.

No, I don't think that was his purpose. Like I said, I think he just got a little careless. When I said, "Psychological blackmail", "Intellectual masturbation", I meant some of my past detractors who hid behind "We", "Morality".

No, that wasn't my impression, either. I thought he was being a little careless with the use of words, and when got caught at it, didn't have enough fortitude to acknowledge it. That was my speculation as well. Does that make sense to you? It does to me. In that case, he could have qualified his statements, with "based on my moral standard". Too often, people try to hide behind "we", "Morality" as "short cuts" (implied as if it "Morality" stands for universal morality across time and space for all humanity, instead of "morality" being their individual preferences) to psychologically blackmail others and/or for the purpose of intellectual masturbation.

We are concerned to determine what the effects or ends are of various causes or means--our own actions, public policies--because we prefer some effects to others. (I actually maintain that the ends in part are constituted in the means.) And the standard by which we should determine which effects or ends are to be preferred is a moral standard. - Ed Hudgins Peter, do you see the irony above?

Peter, are you implying then, "We Objectivists" decide what is moral for all humanity across time and space? Do you consider my question as you related above objectionable? If so, then why? Are you implying that I am a bully? If so, then why? Okay, so you regard articulating what is moral and who decides what is moral (according to Objectivist morality) for all humanity across time and space, not of interest? So why do you support this site?

First of all, who is this "we"? Second of all, does this "we" decide what is moral across time and space for all humanity? Well, if you have no preferences for happiness or misery, health or sickness, life or death, if it's all the same to you, then there's really nothing to discuss is there? Where did I say or imply that I have no preferences for happiness or misery, health or sickness, life or death? ....but I neither said it nor implied it. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth something I neither said nor implied? I'm merely asking you to clarify what you meant by "we"? ...and whether does this "we" decide what is moral for all humanity across time and space? Ed, does this [your refusal to reply to a few questions relevant to your posts on the context of this thread] imply that ..either you do not know "who decides what is moral for all humanity across time and space"? or you do know, but refused to enlighten the people who are interested in Objectivism on the nature of who decides what is moral for all humanity?

First of all, who is this "we"? Second of all, does this "we" decide what is moral across time and space for all humanity? Well, if you have no preferences for happiness or misery, health or sickness, life or death, if it's all the same to you, then there's really nothing to discuss is there? Where did I say or imply that I have no preferences for happiness or misery, health or sickness, life or death? ....but I neither said it nor implied it. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth something I neither said nor implied? I'm merely asking you to clarify what you meant by "we"? ...and whether does this "we" decide what is moral for all humanity across time and space?

Editing error

Ed, who provided and/or articulated the standard by which "we"(as you used it above) should determine which effects or ends are to be preferred?

First of all, who is this "we"? Second of all, does this "we" decide what is moral across time and space for all humanity? Ed, who provided and/or articulated the standard by which "we"(as you used it above) should determine which effects or ends are to be preferred?

Ed, I am glad that you didn't try to use the word, "moral" on the starting post of this thread to defend your assertion. That's the spirit. My biggest peeve with "Objectivists" is their use of the word, "moral" to defend their assertion, instead of attempting to explain, "the cause" and "effect" of the issues.

Well, it depends on particular situation of the loved one and his/her values/life-long objectives/goals (as one sees it) at the time one thinks one is confronted with such scenario.) and the moral standard one has set for oneself. Precisely, therefore, are you stating that it is not always immoral to lie? Adam By my moral standard? Of course, it's not.

Well, it depends on particular situation of the loved one and his/her values/life-long objectives/goals (as one sees it) at the time one thinks one is confronted with such scenario.) and the moral standard one has set for oneself.

Are you implying all lies are immoral? In that lies seek to fake reality - of course all lies are immoral... So it would have been immoral to lie to the Nazis during the Holocaust that one's Jewish friends are Gentiles according to your moral standard?

Are you implying all lies are immoral?