Reconsidering Rand's Ethics

[Philip Coates]

> I made some points just this week on why I believe the Michelson-Morley experiment does not disprove the existence of the ether. No response. And I made this week a post arguing that the dispute over whether the choice to live is a moral one or a pre-moral one is simply an issue of formulation. No response. [Me]

> I missed that one, could you post a link? [shayne]

> Einstein Method, Rand Misunderstanding--Post #11 is one of Phil's posts. [Adam]

No, I was referring to a post in another thread in the last four or five days:

"What occurred to me when I was first taught the Michelson-Morley experiment was that several alternative logical possibilities exist which 'preserve the ether':

i) 'Local effects' (the earth's atmosphere, the solar system or the solar wind, magnetism) might block out, drive away or interfere with the penetration or operation of the ether -- in the same way that water in the sea is a bigger or stronger medium and blocks out air to breathe.

ii) The ether is 'carried along' with the earth (or in a wider case, the solar system) so that any attempt to go against the current will fail because there is no cross current -- in the same way the ocean tide carry all smaller motions or material along.

iii) The ether is too tenuous for its effects to be detected (or it doesn't interact in a way that causes 'drag' on light). This idea that our instruments don't measure something that is very real but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist has been rediscovered in a sense, with the hypotheses that Dark Energy or Dark Matter exists, but our instruments are not yet fine enough to detect it."

(I didn't write down what thread my post was from, just pasted it into my physics folder.)

[George H. Smith]

And I made this week a post arguing that the dispute over whether the choice to live is a moral one or a pre-moral one is simply an issue of formulation. No response. [Me]

Speaking as one asshole to another, I agree with you on this point. [Me]

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. [shayne]

Exactly what I (and some others) have been subjected to. And my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

Edited February 22, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. [shayne]

Exactly what I (and some others) have been subjected to. And my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

First, to quote Shayne about "belligerent personal attacks" is rather like quoting Hitler on the "Jewish Question," as you surely know.

Second, you take all of this much too seriously.

Ghs

[sjw]

> I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. [shayne]

Exactly what I (and some others) have been subjected to. And my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

First, to quote Shayne about "belligerent personal attacks" is rather like quoting Hitler on the "Jewish Question," as you surely know.

Second, you take all of this much too seriously.

Ghs

Perhaps if you took ideas more seriously then I wouldn't mop the floor with you in debate, and then you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem nearly as much as you do.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

> I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. [shayne]

Exactly what I (and some others) have been subjected to. And my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

Aw, Phil, you don't get it: we all like you (at least I do). We like you because you're smart, strong, immutable (steadfast), right, wrong, WTF? You just aren't the alpha wolf you think you are, but we don't even mind you thinking that. But if you want to take it to the next level with such as us you've got to stop the bullshit. If OL is such a lowlife place you say it is, then WTF are you doing here? If you drop the ad h. there won't be any ad h. left respecting you your friends here won't spike in the gut. Stop complaining but keep explaining but remember not to complain about the complaining about your explaining if it's about the explanation being complained about and not you.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

> I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. [shayne]

Exactly what I (and some others) have been subjected to. And my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

First, to quote Shayne about "belligerent personal attacks" is rather like quoting Hitler on the "Jewish Question," as you surely know.

Second, you take all of this much too seriously.

Ghs

Perhaps if you took ideas more seriously then I wouldn't mop the floor with you in debate, and then you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem nearly as much as you do.

Shayne

Yes, perhaps. And perhaps if you didn't suffer from penis envy, perhaps the world would be a better place....

Ghs

[sjw]

Yes, perhaps. And perhaps if you didn't suffer from penis envy, perhaps the world would be a better place....

Ghs

And to think you were just chastising Phil for lame comebacks just a few posts back.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, perhaps. And perhaps if you didn't suffer from penis envy, perhaps the world would be a better place....

Ghs

And to think you were just chastising Phil for lame comebacks just a few posts back.

Shayne

That's a good one.

--Brant

I can use some Viagra, too, but the organisms are still good

Edited February 22, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Yes, perhaps. And perhaps if you didn't suffer from penis envy, perhaps the world would be a better place....

Ghs

And to think you were just chastising Phil for lame comebacks just a few posts back.

Shayne

Oh? I didn't realize that you have been so frequently been accused of penis envy to the extent that it has become a cliché. Perhaps this is a subject we best not pursue further.

Ghs

[Selene]

Phil:

Please listen to this late 50's blues song and grant me absolution...

Adam

reduced to weeping and wailing

[sjw]

Yes, perhaps. And perhaps if you didn't suffer from penis envy, perhaps the world would be a better place....

Ghs

And to think you were just chastising Phil for lame comebacks just a few posts back.

Shayne

Oh? I didn't realize that you have been so frequently been accused of penis envy, to the extent that it has become a cliché. Perhaps this is a subject we best not pursue further.

Ghs

You're firing blanks George ;)

Shayne

[sjw]

> I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. [shayne]

Exactly what I (and some others) have been subjected to. And my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

You are arguing with people who are (presumably) not ethical in their debate tactics for them to be ethical. What if you asked a thief not to be ethical and to leave your property with you? He'll just mock you for acting as if he's ethical enough to take your advice and then take your stuff.

It is too large a burden to ask Michael to police this place, and even if he did, I'm sure he wouldn't do it to your liking anyway. You have to take it or leave it.

Shayne

Edited February 22, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

Yes, perhaps. And perhaps if you didn't suffer from penis envy, perhaps the world would be a better place....

Ghs

And to think you were just chastising Phil for lame comebacks just a few posts back.

Shayne

Oh? I didn't realize that you have been so frequently been accused of penis envy, to the extent that it has become a cliché. Perhaps this is a subject we best not pursue further.

Ghs

You're firing blanks George ;)

Shayne

I understand that you crave attention, Shayne, but you will have to get it from someone other than me. I have found that being an enabler of intellectual crackpots yields little if any personal satisfaction.

Btw, did you know that if it is theoretically possible for a billion people to consent to a government that this refutes anarchism? I thought you might like to add this devastating argument to your arsenal.

Ghs

[sjw]

I understand that you crave attention, Shayne, but you will have to get it from someone other than me. I have found that being an enabler of intellectual crackpots yields little if any personal satisfaction.

I keep waiting for you to ignore me but you just keep coming back for more punishment.

Shayne

-Floor's already clean George, take the night off.

[George H. Smith]

> I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. [shayne]

Exactly what I (and some others) have been subjected to. And my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

You are arguing with people who are (presumably) not ethical in their debate tactics for them to be ethical. What if you asked a thief not to be ethical and to leave your property with you? He'll just mock you for acting as if he's ethical enough to take your advice and then take your stuff.

It is too large a burden to ask Michael to police this place, and even if he did, I'm sure he wouldn't do it to your liking anyway. You have to take it or leave it.

Shayne

Has it occurred to you that if Michael were to "police" OL as you suggest that you would be one of the first to be be kicked off?

Ghs

[sjw]

Has it occurred to you that if Michael were to "police" OL as you suggest that you would be one of the first to be be kicked off?

Ghs

Unlike you, I try to avoid presuming to know what people think.

Shayne

-Like I said, floor's clean George.

[George H. Smith]

I understand that you crave attention, Shayne, but you will have to get it from someone other than me. I have found that being an enabler of intellectual crackpots yields little if any personal satisfaction.

I keep waiting for you to ignore me but you just keep coming back for more punishment.

Shayne

-Floor's already clean George, take the night off.

Good advice, Shayne, and I will try to take it. I have an unfortunate tendency to get involved in exchanges with intellectual nonentities -- perhaps as a kind of target practice -- but in your case I will do my best to resist this temptation.

Btw, did you know that if it is theoretically possible for two people to consent to a government that this refutes anarchism? I am of course beholden to you for this brilliant insight.

Ghs

[sjw]

Phil, I'm going to throw my two cents in here for what it's worth. This is just a rough idea for an experiment, not a fully-formed plan or claim that it will definitely work.

I did mention in another thread that maybe it would be feasible to have a "gentlemen's debate" area with written debate rules and self-policing. People would be required to follow the rules in good faith. Only if someone got bizarrely out of hand in flouting the rules would Michael be involved.

It would probably be good to have more than one set of rules, and at the beginning of any thread, the original poster could declare what the rules are for the thread or point to a pre-written list of them.

If it worked right, then it would leave most of OL as is, but in this little area, there would be civilized debate (per the thread poster's definition of what that means). Michael would only be called in if someone was very clearly out of line, and in that case the person would probably be banned from that area, and if he didn't stay out then he'd be banned from OL.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Phil, I'm going to throw my two cents in here for what it's worth. This is just a rough idea for an experiment, not a fully-formed plan or claim that it will definitely work.

I did mention in another thread that maybe it would be feasible to have a "gentlemen's debate" area with written debate rules and self-policing. People would be required to follow the rules in good faith. Only if someone got bizarrely out of hand in flouting the rules would Michael be involved.

It would probably be good to have more than one set of rules, and at the beginning of any thread, the original poster could declare what the rules are for the thread or point to a pre-written list of them.

If it worked right, then it would leave most of OL as is, but in this little area, there would be civilized debate (per the thread poster's definition of what that means). Michael would only be called in if someone was very clearly out of line, and in that case the person would probably be banned from that area, and if he didn't stay out then he'd be banned from OL.

Shayne

Although your advice is overpriced at two cents, it is worth at least a penny. Let us indeed have Phil draw up a list of rules for a civil debate. That alone should not take him more than 100,000 words. Perhaps you could help Phil out by insisting on a clause that demands that people treat one another politely. You could even link many of your own posts, including your personal attacks on Rothbard, as examples of what should get people banned from OL.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I understand that you crave attention, Shayne, but you will have to get it from someone other than me. I have found that being an enabler of intellectual crackpots yields little if any personal satisfaction.

I keep waiting for you to ignore me but you just keep coming back for more punishment.

Shayne

-Floor's already clean George, take the night off.

Good advice, Shayne, and I will try to take it. I have an unfortunate tendency to get involved in exchanges with intellectual nonentities -- perhaps as a kind of target practice -- but in your case I will do my best to resist this temptation.

Btw, did you know that if it is theoretically possible for two people to consent to a government that this refutes anarchism? I am of course beholden to you for this brilliant insight.

Ghs

Personally, I refute anarchy by shooting anarchists on sight. Unfortunately, I don't see too good any more.

Locale: rural West Virginia

Time: too long ago

Place: farmer John's front porch

Who's there: farmer John and some friends for supper prepared by farmer John

Quote: "John, this rabbit stew is delicious! Where do you get your rabbits, since you're too old and slow to go out huntin'?"

John: "Oh, I just sit here on my porch with my trusty rifle at night with the candle light, and when them rabbits say "Meow!", I let 'em have it right between the eyes!"

--Brant

Edited February 22, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Although your advice is overpriced at two cents, it is worth at least a penny. Let us indeed have Phil draw up a list of rules for a civil debate. That alone should not take him more than 100,000 words. Perhaps you could help Phil out by insisting on a clause that demands that people treat one another politely. You could even link many of your own posts, including your personal attacks on Rothbard, as examples of what should get people banned from OL.

Ghs

First of all, OL is essentially "frontier justice," so don't whine because in return for your litany of ad hominem attacks on me, that missed the mark, I actually shot back with something, that very obviously hit it.

Second, I am not saying people should be banned for breaking the rules. I'm saying they should be banned for wasting MSK's time in the minimal policing I'm talking about -- the brazen violation of rules that the person had agreed to.

Third, it would be a silly rule to say that you can't morally evaluate the vicious actions of dead historical figures.

Fourth, I thought you were going to ignore me.

Fifth, you are giving great examples of pointless attacks that would be against the rules:

1. "Although your advice is overpriced at two cents, it is worth at least a penny."

2. "That alone should not take him more than 100,000 words."

3. "You could even link many of your own posts, including your personal attacks on Rothbard, as examples of what should get people banned from OL."

Granted, the gentleman's area might be a tad boring for some, given that it would be bereft of your best talent (note: although I did soften the bite in that one, it would still be against he rules), but what's the harm in having it?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

George and rules: oil and water.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Although your advice is overpriced at two cents, it is worth at least a penny. Let us indeed have Phil draw up a list of rules for a civil debate. That alone should not take him more than 100,000 words. Perhaps you could help Phil out by insisting on a clause that demands that people treat one another politely. You could even link many of your own posts, including your personal attacks on Rothbard, as examples of what should get people banned from OL.

Ghs

First of all, OL is essentially "frontier justice," so don't whine because in return for your litany of ad hominem attacks on me, that missed the mark, I actually shot back with something, that very obviously hit it.

Second, I am not saying people should be banned for breaking the rules. I'm saying they should be banned for wasting MSK's time in the minimal policing I'm talking about -- the brazen violation of rules that the person had agreed to.

Third, it would be a silly rule to say that you can't morally evaluate the vicious actions of dead historical figures.

Fourth, I thought you were going to ignore me.

Fifth, you are giving great examples of pointless attacks that would be against the rules:

1. "Although your advice is overpriced at two cents, it is worth at least a penny."

2. "That alone should not take him more than 100,000 words."

3. "You could even link many of your own posts, including your personal attacks on Rothbard, as examples of what should get people banned from OL."

Granted, the gentleman's area might be a tad boring for some, given that it would be bereft of your best talent (note: although I did soften the bite in that one, it would still be against he rules), but what's the harm in having it?

Shayne

I have never had a problem with polemical exchanges, including so-called personal attacks, on OL. What I cannot abide are hypocrites who preach one thing and practice another. Phil is easily the most condescending poster on OL, and you are one of the most obnoxious. Yet both of you frequently whine about the incivility on OL. The rountine excuse that both of you use, "But he started it," is what we would expect from five-year olds.

If you two want civility, then start by setting personal examples via your own posts. Practice what you preach, for a change.

Ghs

[Selene]

How to Reclaim Civil Discourse

By Ginger Voight, eHow Contributor updated: January 26, 2011 Civil discourse begins with showing respect for differing opinions. When exchanging ideas, especially in heated topics like politics, it can become a challenge to keep to the rules of civil debate. Emotions can run high when discussing political philosophy, as many identify themselves with their core principles. Pundits, politicians and media correspondents can often stir the pot, feeding into the "them vs. us" mentality. This leaves it up to individuals to reclaim a tone of civility and maintain the dignity of the conversation.

Difficulty: Easy

Instructions

1. 1 Show respect for differing opinions, as well as your opponent himself. These opinions mean as much to him as yours do to you. You don't have to agree with these opinions to show the simple courtesy of respecting his right to have them. In doing so you treat your opponent the way you wish to be treated. Remember that your opponent is not your enemy, even if you do not agree.
2. 2 Listen to what is being said, rather than just wait for the opportunity to speak. Oprah Winfrey has quoted that everyone simply wants to be heard. A good way to avoid upsetting your opponent unnecessarily is simply to hear what she has to say. This also stems from showing your opponent simple respect.
3. 3 Avoid name-calling. Insults are unnecessary and juvenile, and are commonly used in the place of legitimate debate. It is too easy to resort to this playground behavior, and once you do the opportunity to have your opponent hear what you have to say flies right out of the window.
4. 4 Grow a thicker skin. Just because you refrain from calling names doesn't mean your opponent will do the same. This is to upset you and illicit a specific response and possibly distract you from your point. Do not give in to your knee-jerk reaction. Stay on topic and stay calm.
5. 5 Appeal to your opponent's sense of empathy. Tell your opponent how you developed your ideals, including personal stories that can put a face on a principle. This will allow him to see the situation from another set of eyes and another point of view.
6. 6 Likewise develop your own sense of empathy toward others. Hear why your opponent feels the way that she feels and try to put yourself in her shoes. Determine how those circumstances may affect your own point of view. Instead of just saying, "I understand," endeavor to really try to relate to what is being said.
7. 7 Avoid broad blanket statements, stereotypes and hyperbole. These literary devices are exaggerations that are used to illicit a strong response. Avoid words like "every," "all" or "always." Speak to a specific issue, rather than an entire group or philosophy.
8. 8 Never use hate speech or threats, even in jest. Violent rhetoric is ineffective in the course of civil discourse, and can even prove dangerous. A person who feels threatened may likely strike back out of fear, and this obstructs real progress in a civil debate.