Tony

Red Grant and Adam Selene are not “We Objectivists.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Adam wrote:

. . . wondering if their is a formal excommunication procedure enshrined in the High Temple of "O"bjectivism which must be that decaying structure that you can occasionally see as the light from Wyatt's torch flickers in the winds of history...

end quote

You really tick me off. A hero like Ed Hudgins deserves a better reception here. That was an interesting analogy so I will answer. Your depiction of ARI Objectivism as a decaying structure speaks of your inner rot. They are growing, and growing, thanks to those invitations in Ayn Rand’s books.

There is no formal ARI excommunication procedure. It is not a religion, though some of us can be dogmatic. Those dogmatic people are moral. You are not, in an intellectual sense. You are like Kant, though more openly vicious. Virtually all ARI Objectivists that I have known really have thought it through. They just won’t speak to you.

I am growing weary of Anarchists who use Ayn Rand as an inroads to “decent society” while at the same time besmirching her. I am weary of Anarchists who use the freedom and prosperity of America as a launching pad to destroy America.

Rational Anarchists are perched on Rand’s statue like a sickly pirate’s parrot, crapping on her philosophy. She shrugged you off long ago, but you keep swooping down.

To use a euphemism from the TV show “Caprica,” “Frack you! Get lost, Creep.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I realize that it is difficult for crusader type tribal-thinking people who like to demonize "enemies" to imagine a person can make a pure expression of contempt about someone's acts without trying to engage in a group movement, but that is exactly what I was doing.

I would not appreciate coming to an Objectivist site and then discover I am being challenged to debate, Rand 101. That is not why I support this site.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

That is a vision of human life I don't expect a crusader-type tribal-thinking person to understand. But that is what OL is really all about.

Michael

I want to thank Ed Hudgins for his contributions to The Atlas Society.

Red Grant and Adam Selene are not “We Objectivists.” Red Grant came here and immediately asked for the moderators definition of “Bullying.” I would consider this before responding, and his supporter, Anarchist Adam Selene is not an Objectivist. Well, I would respond, if they say anything of interest, which is possible, but not probable. I would not appreciate coming to an Objectivist site and then discover I am being challenged to debate, Rand 101. That is not why I support this site.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Jonathan,

I admit that I am getting a kick out of you on SLOP.

Among the several aspects I am enjoying, there is one in particular that is much more serious than the give-and-take of rhetoric. I don't know how many times you have requested that Perigo (or anyone for that matter) define his terms as provided by Objectivist epistemology. In other words, genus and differentia.

You have even framed it in an artistic manner for emphasis, the "Turandot Challenge," making obvious reference to Perigo's own mocking of the ARI folks for not answering his complaints against Peikoff's views on electoral politics and religion.

How many times has it been that you have asked? Five? Six? That sounds about right. Nobody even comments on your request, much less answers it.

Dayaamm!

(But they do find the time to call you all sorts of names.)

I can't think of any better proof that the views expounded on that thread have nothing to do with Objectivism.

If these folks (by which I mean SLOPPERS as defined by the genus and differentia presented in my opening post on this thread) cannot distinguish between what is "objective" and what is "subjective" using elementary Objectivist epistemology, I wonder what their position would be if they tried to further develop their sorry-ass excuses for concepts...

Michael

I just saw the most amazing statement about Perigo from a semi-thinking person, Ms. Stuttle.

Isnt' she a lonely old-lady?

She was presenting her objections to Jonathan's method of dialog on SLOP and came out with this gem:

And I think that his intent isn't to open paths for dialogue but instead to mock and to taunt Linz.

Thus from my standpoint what he accomplishes is (mostly) just to be in the way of getting anywhere productive.

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.

I believe he mocks and taunts because he despises hypocrisy, especially when it goes about parading as spiritual guidance. That's my opinion, not his statement, but I do base it on reading a lot of posts by him.

But taking the accusation at face value, what, pray tell, is it that Perigo does and intends—day after day—that is any different than mocking and taunting?

What did Perigo do and intend with Barbara Branden? With Jim Peron? With Chris Sciabarra? Hell, even with Diana Hsieh after he "did and intended" with the others? Did he intend to "open paths for dialogue" with these people and get somewhere "productive"? I could go on since the list is quite long, but that's enough for now.

Michael

You have even framed it in an artistic manner for emphasis, the "Turandot Challenge," making obvious reference to Perigo's own mocking of the ARI folks for not answering his complaints against Peikoff's views on electoral politics and religion.

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.

Jonathan,

I admit that I am getting a kick out of you on SLOP.

Among the several aspects I am enjoying, there is one in particular that is much more serious than the give-and-take of rhetoric. I don't know how many times you have requested that Perigo (or anyone for that matter) define his terms as provided by Objectivist epistemology. In other words, genus and differentia.

You have even framed it in an artistic manner for emphasis, the "Turandot Challenge," making obvious reference to Perigo's own mocking of the ARI folks for not answering his complaints against Peikoff's views on electoral politics and religion.

How many times has it been that you have asked? Five? Six? That sounds about right. Nobody even comments on your request, much less answers it.

Dayaamm!

(But they do find the time to call you all sorts of names.)

I can't think of any better proof that the views expounded on that thread have nothing to do with Objectivism.

If these folks (by which I mean SLOPPERS as defined by the genus and differentia presented in my opening post on this thread) cannot distinguish between what is "objective" and what is "subjective" using elementary Objectivist epistemology, I wonder what their position would be if they tried to further develop their sorry-ass excuses for concepts...

Michael

Michael, I agree with your views above.

Let's try this to make it more palatable for you. Think of "we" in Ed's context as an abbreviation for "we humans." Sort of like a contraction of "does not" to "don't."

Shortening our phrases is a common habit in English usage.

Er...

Uh oh...

I said "our phrases"...

Michael

...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.

The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

All right, all right. Let's make the differentia "those who consider Perigo as their intellectual leader

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.

So let's look at the concretes constituting the genus for "O-Liars." I went through all 733 posts on that thread and made note of people who posted there and also post or have posted on OL. Here is the list:

Ellen Stuttle

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.

Jonathan

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.

William Scherk

I think he posted every now and then at Greg's blog, didn't talk too much.

Peter (who is Dragonfly on OL)

One of the semi-regular poster, at Greg's and a pretty good thinker.

Robert Campbell

I think I gave him a very hard time once or twice at Greg's (but not in a bullying way)

Neil Parille

Smart in a tactical sense, didn't talk too much at Greg's blog in a way to leave himself vulnerable to counters.

Michael Hardy

If I remember him correctly, I think I gave him a very hard time once at Greg's blog. (But no bullying)

Well, let's look at the main characterization constantly presented by SLOPPERS on that thread, "O-Liars." Which of the individuals above are the "liars"?

....or Michael Hardy a liar,

Hmmmmm...

I'm just asking.

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".

[

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?

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TTC6FJphWA&feature=player_embedded

Would have liked the movie better if Mel restrained himself on the gore parts.

OK

Let's have a good ole fashioned Objectivist big hug!

Hmmm

Maybe I am a bit too hopeful for change!

Adam

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?

Thanks Michael, your evaluation was right on the mark! I'll add that I spend a lot of my time writing the articles and commentaries and thus less time posting about them on websites (or reading lots of threads for that matter) unless some really good issues are raised.

So you did get careless?

.....and in any case, I just assume that a crafty James Bond villain would do deep opposition research and eventually find and read Rand's "Objectivist Ethics!"

Why do you assume that I am necessarily in opposition?

I merely asked you to clarify your misused (I think) words.

Red,

LOL...

Do you really think Ed Hudgins is capable of "psychological blackmail" "for the purpose of intellectual masturbation"?

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".

Red,

I just caught this thread.

I think you are making too much out of Ed's use of the word, "we."

I don't think his intention is to set himself up as a prophet for Objectivism or anything of that nature.

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.

I think he is just saying "we" as human beings in general.

That was my speculation as well.

Here. Let me paraphrase Ed's statement, replacing "we" for "human beings" so you can see what I mean. Don't forget that the idea was to mention morality.

The actions of the Obamanistas in many ways are immoral. Human beings are concerned to determine what the effects or ends are of various causes or means--the actions of human beings, public policies--because human beings prefer some effects to others. (I actually maintain that the ends in part are constituted in the means.) And the standard by which human beings should determine which effects or ends are to be preferred is a moral standard. There, I got morality into the thread!

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.

I want to thank Ed Hudgins for his contributions to The Atlas Society.

I want to thank Ed and everyone else who had a hand in writing the latest issue of The New Individualist. I especially want to say to Executive Editor Sherrie Gossett, “Outstanding!” It is the best issue ever, from the quirky caricature of Ayn on the cover to the sparse poem, “Telamon,” on the last page.

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?

Red Grant and Adam Selene are not “We Objectivists.”

Peter, are you implying then, "We Objectivists" decide what is moral for all humanity across time and space?

Red Grant came here and immediately asked for the moderators definition of “Bullying.”

Do you consider my question as you related above objectionable?

If so, then why?

I would consider this before responding,....

Are you implying that I am a bully? If so, then why?

I would respond, if they say anything of interest, which is possible, but not probable. I would not appreciate coming to an Objectivist site and then discover I am being challenged to debate, Rand 101.

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?

That is not why I support this site.

So why do you support this site?

The actions of the Obamanistas in many ways are immoral.

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. There, I got morality into the thread!

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?

....if it's all the same to you, then there's really nothing to discuss is there?

....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?

The actions of the Obamanistas in many ways are immoral.

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. There, I got morality into the thread!

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?

....if it's all the same to you, then there's really nothing to discuss is there?

....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

And the standard by which we should determine which effects or ends are to be preferred is a moral standard.

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?

The actions of the Obamanistas in many ways are immoral.

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. There, I got morality into the thread!

First of all, who is this "we"?

Second of all, does this "we" decide what is moral across time and space for all humanity?

And the standard by which we should determine which effects or ends are to be preferred is a moral standard.

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.

A classic conundrum is the following:

A person you love is dying, and you know that it is imminent, therefore is it immoral to lie to them when they ask you...am I dying?

Adam

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.

A classic conundrum is the following:

A person you love is dying, and you know that it is imminent, therefore is it immoral to lie to them when they ask you...am I dying?

Adam

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.

I think the fundamental problem with Avatar is the immoral (because it's a lie) foundation of the "noble savage" picture he was painting.

Bob

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?

I think the fundamental problem with Avatar is the immoral (because it's a lie) foundation of the "noble savage" picture he was painting.

Bob

Are you implying all lies are immoral?