KacyRay

See ya.

Kacy,

Of course he didn't ask you to.

He manipulated you into it.

It's a control thing and you fell for it.

btw - Aren't you the guy who broadcasted to the four winds--including right here on OL in about a bazillion posts--that you blocked this dude from communicating with you from everywhere because he was stalking you or something? The dude was bad faith and so on? Wasn't that you?

And here you are telling everyone what gets through and what doesn't get through in his moderated posts. You are in essence making his posts for him.

How on earth did you become aware of what's in them?

Hmmmmm?

And where did the urge to say this in public come from?

Hmmmmm?

You were played, pure and simple.

Stings, doesn't it?

I wonder what else he's going to have you doing.

Michael

I blocked him from commenting on my own personal venues. I don't pretend to have censored him from anywhere other than my own cyber-realms.

Yes, he was being disrespectful and deliberately trolling. But I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here and now. What you perceive as me being manipulated is actually a good faith demonstration on my part that I am not interested in grudges. So long as dialogue remains respectful and honest, I will dialogue with anyone so long as the conversation is one worth having.

You know, this "you're being manipulated" line is yet another vague and unfalsifiable charge, and I'm baffled that you are persisting with it. You could make that charge against anything I say, couldn't you? I could just as easily say it about every word you write and there's not a thing you could do to falsify the accusation. In fact anyone could say it about anything anyone else says.

I've had off-line conversations with RB many times. Up until now, they were contentious and not related to anything being discussed in the common areas. That's why you never heard about them,.

But the off-line conversations I'm having now *do* relate. And the reason I know what he wrote that didn't get through moderation is because he sent them my way. I didn't realize that sending someone a copy of something you wrote that didn't get through moderation in order to continue discussing it was a manipulation tactic. And here it looked to me like... conversation!

You know you're being condescending. You know that your "you're so easily manipulated! How cute!" line is condescending and unmerited.

And for the record... this conversation isn't about RB. It's about you and me, and the fact that decorating your condescension with emoticons doesn't disguise what you're doing. I was having a fine conversation about anti-fragility, and I would have liked it if RB would have been able to continue contributing to it. I don't know what kind of PM's you're getting or who they're coming from, but I am pretty confident that my words, and the motives for speaking them, are mine alone. I'd appreciate it if you would grant me the benefit of the doubt on that.

RB did not ask me to say anything, relay any messages, or speak in any way on his behalf at any point. But hey... don't be afraid to play out a narrative in your mind!

I wasn't suggesting you were dropping hints with the title. I was putting that completely on the guy who titled the video.

Morgan said "Makes me sick". That's disgust, which is quite different from "angry after losing debate". Disgust is an appropriate reaction in many cases.

It's off topic, I know... I was just pointing out how common that polemic tactic is - the assigning of emotions to others.

Eh, nice try MSK.

For "anti-fragile" I suggest meta-stable or at least tough. Durable was a good suggestion, also. Avoid anti-concepts whenever possible; otherwise, you risk being unclear.

RB is clarifying to me (since his comments aren't getting through moderation) that anti-fragile is being misunderstood. That's partially my fault for conflating it with durability.

Durability is an imperviousness to damage.

Anti-fragility is actually a state in which a normally damaging situation (action/statement/blunder) actually actually makes the anti-fragile being stronger.

In other words, a durable person would be unaffected by a bullet. An anti-fragile person would absorb the bullet and be made stronger by it.

That was clear in the OP - I just didn't catch it.

He also made some comments regarding my assessment of Palin that I hope make it through moderation.

I like that title "Piers Morgan gets angry after losing gun control debate"

As you pointed out, people aren't interested in reality. They have to play out the narrative in their mind. There it is again, the tendency among people to engage in polemic demagoguery.

It's such an adolescent polemic tactic, and I see it so often.

I'm not talking about arms. I'm talking about guns.

Kacy,

Then let me rephrase.

You are not free to disarm me of any of my arms, including guns. I will not let you.

Is that line in the sand clear or is there some other hair to split to make my meaning understandable?

Michael

Sure, the line you're drawing is clear. And it is also arbitrary. Do you recognize that?

The constitution says "arms". It does not say what kind. Therefore you're either supporting the rights of citizens to bear any kind of armament whatsoever or you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

Grandstanding about how you're not going to permit me to take away your guns is amusing since I'm not trying. But it's besides the point, isn't it?

For example, he doesn't need government handouts to the poor and needy. He is the most charitable being on earth.

Okay, how in the world do you get from "individualism" to this? What feature of individualism necessarily leads to this statement? I'm pretty sure one can be a stingy individualist.

I wonder if you could simply answer with clarity - do you believe that there are armaments that private citizens should not be allowed to own/possess/purchase/create?

Kacy,

Your premise is that the government permits individual rights, it grants them, it permits what it will and it removes permission for what it will.

That's actually the exact opposite of my premise. My premise is that a government should prevent its citizenry from harming each other. All else is fair game.

My premise is that the individual permits the government to exist as protector of individual rights, but the government has no other control over them.

Yeah, me too.

If you're worried about powerful weapons being in the hands of the individual, I'm more worried about them being in the hands of a government bureaucrat and not having any way to protect myself if that person (or people) goes south.

Really? So I'm gathering from this that you take the first position I spoke of... that any citizen ought to be allowed to have any weapon it chooses. Is that accurate?

In other words... if the mid-eastern guy next door wants to build a dirty bomb in his basement, that's fine, right? After all, he isn't a bureaucrat.

You're free to disarm yourself. That's your choice.

But you are not free to disarm me and I will not let you.

I'm not talking about arms. I'm talking about guns. You see, that's a subconcept that falls under the concept of "arms"....

Correct. You and your progressives, you did self identify with them on the thread where I posted their utopian pamphlet, get out there among the people and you amend the Constitution by modifying the Second Amendment.

Move along now.

Gosh... wasn't prepared for such a strong argument. Excuse me while I go lick my wounds.

KacyRay, on 21 Dec 2013 - 7:05 PM, said:

If Selene is going to bring up the fact that "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, then it is perfectly legitimate to bring up the fact that the constitution doesn't mention guns.

This of course is a fallacy.

No, it isn't, which is probably why you didn't name the fallacy. And i decline to jump through your hoops. If you don't know that the first amendment prohibits government endorsement of a religion then you're the one who needs to do homework, not me. But don't worry... keep on listening to mommy Palin and daddy Beck and you'll be fine. I hope one day you find yourself enjoying the theocratic utopia that those two have in mind for us one day, so long as it ain't in America.

Kacy,

In Objectivism, concepts are hierarchical.

A gun is an arm. Note that arm is the wider concept and gun falls under it. So you not only get the right to bear guns (one type of arms), you can bear other kinds of weapons, too. There is nothing restricting what kind of arms you can bear in the language.

For the record, "arms" should be understood as in armaments, i.e., military weapons, ammunition and equipment. Not arms as in human appendages.

This is a matter of conceptual thinking, not word games.

I know the Constitution was not made using formal Objectivist epistemology, but there were wider concepts back when it was written, and narrower ones too , and there were hierarchies of organizing knowledge. It's more than reasonable to conclude that guns were included in the concept "arms," especially since that's the way they used the language back then.

Michael

MSK,

Yes, I understand everything you're saying. I am already on board with Objectivist Epistemology. In fact, that is probably the aspect of Objectivism I find most relevant to my life.

Now, does the right to bear arms mean that all citizens have the right to bear any kind of armament they desire? In 1789, that *may* have been true, but there's no way to validate that.

What we do know is that since that amendment was written, weapons that the men who wrote that amendment could not possibly have imagined have been created.There was no such thing as a weapon that, in the wrong hands, could destroy entire countries. That means that the men who wrote that amendment could not possibly have made provisions for such weapons. They could not have stipulated it.

So those of us who live in the future (relative to the founders) have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, right? Citizens have the right to bear arms, but what kind of arms citizens are allowed to bear is not specified.

So either you support citizens' right to bear *any kind of arms they like*, or you support a line in the sand. On one side of the line are arms citizens may bear, and on the other side are arms that only law enforcement or military may possess.

If you support the former case... okay, then that's a different conversation.

If you support the latter case, then the next step is to determine exactly where that line is. And there is no place codified in the Constitution where that line should be drawn.

Therefore it is for those of us alive today to decide.

If Selene is going to bring up the fact that "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, then it is perfectly legitimate to bring up the fact that the constitution doesn't mention guns. The government could conceivably permit everyone to carry a knife and outlaw guns and still be well within chapter and verse of the Constitution, if you want to play the "letter of the law" game.

Or, we could dispense with those playground tactics altogether and have a real conversation about theocrats and their agenda.

tmj: Me too. And forgiveness in this case?

Not me.

Can this really be healthy? Is this really a self-serving act?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/us/libya-widow-teacher-forgives-attackers/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The right to bear arms.

No mention of guns.

Oh... now suddenly the wording chosen doesn't matter? Did you mention that to Selene when he was bringing up Separation of Church and State?

Astute observations, Ellen. And I think you are onto something important with that.

What to say about someone who assumes that all those who do not fully agree with everything I accept must therefore support everything I'm against?

Yet, we see a lot of that in her writings.

And it explains why the orthodoxy can hate the Brandens despite their having been in a better position to understand Objectivism and Ayn Rand than anyone else alive.

For all practical intents and purposes, people do not change their basic view. The view you chose, you will take with you to your grave as you deserve... just as I will.

Greg

First off, this is demonstratably false. People change their views all the time.

Secondly, if you really believe this... why do you discuss ideas at all? The only reason I can imagine would be that you enjoy reinforcing what you already believe.

Liberals tend to regard values more as espousing the collective popular consensus of approved politically correct views. Whereas Conservatives tend to regard values more as peoples' actual behavior. This is why liberals blame society for people who do evil... while Conservatives hold people personally responsible for the evil that they do. This is why far more liberals are word Nazis than Conservatives. They feel that they can control people externally through the totalitarian dictatorial control over words.

By the way... I don't want to give the appearance that I agree with any of this by being silent about it. I think this is all garbage.

I'm glad that you can freely express your view here, Kacey... as our differences make for entertaining conversation.

We each share only one thing in common.

We both believe that the other's view is wrong.

Greg

Thanks Gregg.

As entertaining as they are... I can only imagine how much fun they would be if the ideas discussed had an actual impact! As much fun as it is to type out words, it just seems like it would be so much more fun if the ideas attached to those words were ... say... meaningful to the person reading them, right?

Yes, you do. You know by the business transaction.

Greg

I'm pretty sure I pegged you several threads ago for being someone who claims knowledge they can't possibly have.

Point made.

Now excuse me while I go buy lemonade from the little girl across the street. I'm dying to know what her values are.

Liberals tend to regard values more as espousing the collective popular consensus of approved politically correct views. Whereas Conservatives tend to regard values more as peoples' actual behavior. This is why liberals blame society for people who do evil... while Conservatives hold people personally responsible for the evil that they do. This is why far more liberals are word Nazis than Conservatives. They feel that they can control people externally through the totalitarian dictatorial control over words.

By the way... I don't want to give the appearance that I agree with any of this by being silent about it. I think this is all garbage.

I am going to ignore the tribal designations, and speak to the point. Sometimes people recognize that ideas, principles, and convictions are attached to the words people choose to use. When you use the word "nigger" (I don't give a damn whether you abbreviate it or not, you still used the word) you communicate your convictions. You communicate your ideas. You deliberately express a specific sentiment. You communicate your values and convictions.

You are intelligent enough to know that there are dozens of words you could have chosen to identify black folks.

What's more, you are intelligent enough to know that you didn't even need to identify them as black folks, because, for reasons I've already articulated, their race is but one thing that all those criminals share in common. You could have called them "thugs", you could have called them "hooligans" or "criminals". But no, you chose not only to identify them by a racial commonality, but you deliberately chose a term than denigrates not only the thugs in question, but every member of the race they happen to be part of.

Your cop-out is transparent. "Oh, I just focus on actions! Not words! Liberals focus on words!"

"Word Nazi's" and "liberals" are nothing more than ad homs you've chosen to employ as a "get out of saying stupid shit free" card.

If no one else here wants to call you to the carpet for it, that's fine. I'll do it myself, and I'm not letting up.

Greg, what would you do if you had a business relationship with someone who you were certain shared your values, only to find out a few years later that they had changed and were now publicly expressing views that ran contrary to your values?

Liberals tend to regard values more as espousing the collective popular consensus of approved politically correct views. Whereas Conservatives tend to regard values more as peoples' actual behavior. This is why liberals blame society for people who do evil... while Conservatives hold people personally responsible for the evil that they do. This is why far more liberals are word Nazis than Conservatives. They feel that they can control people externally through the totalitarian dictatorial control over words.

So bottom line:

Peoples' dogma doesn't matter to me... only their actual behavior really matters. People can hold all sorts of different beliefs, and yet be decent honest and upright in their actual behavior.

Greg

I will rephrase...

What would you do if you had a business relationship with someone who you were certain shared your values, only to find out a few years later that they had changed and were now behaving in ways that ran contrary to your values?

But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy on life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself.

Sounds very Gregish to me? What do you think?

Another unfortunate example of Rand opining on a subject she knew little about. She assumed that her everyone's internal workings, motivations, and psychology must naturally be the same as her own, and she apparently never questioned that assumption.

I know he must've been in shock - I get that. And I also know that one cannot possibly imagine what it would be like to in that position unless you're in it.

I get all that.

But the fact remains that it would have been perfectly appropriate for him to have a proportionate reaction. It was a reasonable alternative (which would also happen to have been a better one).

Actually, Michelle Obama's uncontrolled reactions reveal a certain lack of focus. When you live in the spotlight as the First Lady of the United States, you do not get to just be yourself. "No reaction" is always the better choice. President Bush was criticized for continuing his elementary school visit when told of 9/11. What would be better? "When in trouble, when in doubt: run in circles; scream and shout."? Best to maintain your composure and deal with it when you can.

Nathaniel Branden said that how people act in emergencies reveals the extent of their self-esteem.

What would have been better would have been to have a proportionate response.

When you're being told that the country, of which you are President and Commander in Chief of their armed forces, is under attack and that civilians are dying by the thousands *as we speak*... I think it would have been appropriate for him to say "excuse me children, it's been delightful to be with you here, but there are urgent matters that require my attention".

Hell of a lot more appropriate than sitting on his hands while Rome burned. And I was a Bush supporter in those days.

The types that resort to polemic demagoguery due to the lack of a cogent position.

Those types.