THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[Victor Pross]

All is fair in love and war, they say.

Hee-hee!!

[Guest Damage Inc.]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved to another thread. It is now here.)

[Victor Pross]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved to another thread. It is now here.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the Caricature of Craig Biddle by Victor in the Art Gallery.

(Note from Administrator: This caricature originally included a cartoon nude which provoked some discussion. The artist decided to remove the image as it was detracting from the main message too much.)

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Now what have you to say about war?

-Victor-

Adam Smith once wrote about our localized concern with human tragedy. The more remote, the less we are concerned. Of course, we'll still show some genuine concern, like the Asian Tsunami of 2004.

But, even here, if we knew someone who suffered loss - or died - our emotional reaction would be magnified. On 9-11, when the twin towers were struck because of Islamofascists my thoughts immediately went to the people - and their families - I had business relationships with. My thoughts then went to all the other lives lost.

Why do I mention this? Humans have a hierarchy of values. This hierarchy includes human relationships.

If those people in our hierarchy are of a real (objectively verifiable) value to us, then, it can be said that we value them selfishly. Yes, there are those - because of the influence of altruism - who invest most of their emotional energy in "saving" the world only to emotionally neglect those people closest to them.

So, with regards to war, the question arises: If our lives and those within our hierarchy are threatened should we place the lives of strangers above our lives and those within our hierarchy? I say, our loyalty ought to be to our own lives, family and friends.

But, we also have to take into consideration the macro-values of the culture we live in, the Government that rules over us, and who is morally responsible for causing the war. It's on this level that things may change.

Suppose, I'm living under an expansionist dictatorship and the country my government is ay war with is a would be liberator (semi-free, but free by comparison). I know that my regime is the enemy. My friends, family and myself are its slave. In essence we are held hostage by my Government. My Government - because of our collective failure to overthrow it - has now caused each one of us to be a mortal threat to other (people - with their own hierarchies) freer nations because my regime has a collective iron fist wrapped around each one of us. Remember, we are their hostages and our hostage takers have destroyed our hierarchy and made us loyal to them. They threaten those we love with certain death if we act again them. Everyone is suspicious of everyone. It's friend against friend. Brother against brother. Our loyalty is forced selfless service to our State. They even hide amoung us. Our "enemy" wouldn't know the difference because we are not free to distinguish ourselves from them. Our "enemy" should do what it needs to do to stop us - and fast. The longer they allow my regime to remain in power, the greater the chances more of their innocents will be murdered (my regime will certainly continue to oppress us who want freedom). If it means that some of us die, so be it. Our "enemy" can't be held responsible because *we* are walking time bombs waiting to go off in *their* society. In allegiance with their innocents, I'd give my life.

Wayne Simmons

Edited October 11, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[Brant Gaede]

So, Michael thinks I'm not a lover? That's much worse than SOLOP! (But why am I so sensitive about this?)

---Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a rose garden of Craig Biddle quotes to accompany the caricature. The long and short of it is he is arguing for using lethal force against intellectuals qua intellectuals.

How to Solve America's Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps - August 31, 2006

Obliterate, from high altitude and long distance, all known Iranian military assets, all Iranian government buildings, all Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian leaders, imams, clerics, and government officials. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night).

(...)

(As to innocent non-Americans, such as Iranian children, who would be killed in such a campaign, they are not properly the concern of our government. Nor would their deaths be the fault of our government. Such deaths are always the fault of the force-initiating regime—and of those who in any way support or enable it—whose actions necessitate such retaliatory measures.)

(...)

Airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: "From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. (...) ... we will be watching you from way up in the sky—higher even than Allah, by means of technology He cannot fathom—and if we see anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat either to America or to our allies, we will annihilate it and everything in its proximity without further warning."

(...)

Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize "its" oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.

Relativism and Religion vs. the Lives of Americans - September 07, 2006

What should we do with captured Islamic terrorists? We should torture them to extract any useful information they might have and then shoot them.

Military 'Solutions' Don't Work; Try Suicide! - September 12, 2006

No, Mr. Kristof, we should not—as the neoconservatives would have it, and as President Bush will probably do—engage in "a few air raids" to "make the Iranian nuclear menace disappear." You're right; that won't work. Rather, we should engage in a massive and sustained air assault on Iran until all the Islamists there are dead. Yes, all of them. You see, dead Islamists can't make bombs. Or will you evade that too?

Why Our (Long-Overdue) Retaliation Against Iran Should Include Bombing Mosques and Madrassahs - September 19, 2006

America is not being attacked by bombs or hijacked airplanes or government buildings or military installations. We are being attacked by people—specifically, by Islamists: people who believe the Koran is true, take its precepts seriously, and thus actively seek the submission or destruction of non-believers. Where are Islamists being produced? Primarily in the mosques and madrassahs (colleges in which students are trained to be Islamists) of the states that sponsor terrorism—especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. Who is producing them? The imams and teachers are. Accordingly, we cannot put an end to this assault merely by taking out government buildings and military installations in enemy states. To put an end to it, we must eliminate those who preach or teach the idea that infidels must die. We must demonstrate that to spout such evil is to ensure personal destruction.

(...)

The basic principle of a proper American foreign policy is that the U.S. government must hold the life and rights of each and every American—whether civilian or soldier—as of greater value than the lives and rights of all non-Americans in the world combined.

(...)

In conjunction with the other elements in this 5-step plan, we should kill the Iranian preachers and teachers who chant and spout "Kill the disbelievers" and "Death to America." We should aim to kill all of them. And the best way to do this is to bomb the Iranian mosques and madrassahs when they are most likely to be occupied.

(...)

(As always, the deaths of all innocents in such a campaign are the sole responsibility of those who necessitate such retaliatory measures—and those apologists who evade the facts, drop context, and attempt to muddy the waters on such issues, thus delaying justice and necessitating the deaths of even more innocents.)

Reply to a Question about Targeting Non-Combatants in War - October 07, 2006

The spiritual center of Islamism is Iran, and the spiritual heads of Iran are the mullahs, imams, and teachers who call for strict adherence to the Koran and thus for the submission or murder of infidels (especially Israelis and Americans). These leaders should be our primary human targets; we should aim to kill as many of them as possible (all would be best) by bombing their mosques, madrassahs, and homes when they are most likely to be there. The unfortunate deaths of innocents (such as children) who would be killed in such an attack are the moral responsibility of those who embrace, advocate, or apologize for Islamism.

(...)

The preachers and teachers of Islamism are not innocent; they are guilty. And they are not merely legitimate targets; they are mandatory targets.

(...)

Today's military strategists do not understand the role of ideas in human life; if they did, they would realize that, in order to achieve our security, we must destroy (not pacify) those who call for death to America. The question of which people must be killed to put an end to the current assault on the West is a philosophic question, and the answer to it is: those who preach or teach the idea that infidels must submit or be killed.

(...)

In today's context, given the nature of the enemy, we need specifically to target, among other things, the intellectual leaders of the Islamist movement.

As is abundantly clear, killing intellectuals (instead of refuting and debunking them) is a specific policy advocated by Biddle over several articles, so it cannot be alleged that this was a single instance of overreaction. Also, in addition to advocating killing intellectuals qua intellectuals, he advocates that blame for any deaths of innocent people that occur in killing these intellectuals is the fault of the intellectuals.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If who to kill is a philosophical question then let the philosophers do the killing and bring the soldiers home.

Mr. Biddle seems to think he's Capt. Kirk on the starship Enterprise threatening the aliens on the planet below if they don't do this or that. Did Walter Mitty ever fantasize he was God?

The thought of trying to argue with such stupidity and ignorance makes my head want to explode. It's "invincible ignorance" anyway. Hence, religious blather.

Michael did the best thing by letting the man be hanged by his own words.

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

Brant,

Is not a picture worth a thousand words anymore?

Victor

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Is not a picture worth a thousand words anymore?

Victor

Sure, but I can't draw.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Michael,

Your last post to me (#280) basically declined to offer any responses to my aguments. None of the Rand quotations cited by you even begin to contradict Rand’s principles regarding the delegation of an individual’s right of self-defense to the government, or a free nation’s right of territorial sovereignty. "Disproving" my position in this way amounts to setting up a smokescreen of verbal obfuscation (combined with some underhanded implications that quoting Rand is somehow inappropriate). We are always “left with our own thinking.” How else are we going to apply principles to concrete situations?

You seem to be operating on the principle that you have already proven your case that ARI is guilty of tribalism/collectivism, and that therefore you do not need to argue it further. I submit that that you are aware (on some level) that your case is in fact indefensible, and this is your way of evading the issue.

Quoting Rand extensively and then announcing to the world that we must toss out her thinking because the quotes prove that she contradicted herself will not work. To begin with, they do no such thing. But beyond that, you have to show how she is wrong. You have not done that. She made clear logical arguments that nation’s have the right to act in self-defense based on the delegation of that moral authority from individual citizens. That is the Objectivist premise underlying the positions on war adopted by ARI and Biddle. You have said nothing to disprove the Objectivist position.

Victor applauded George Smith’s comments on another website to the effect that Biddle’s defenders are advocating views suggestive of tribalism. I’m curious is you are prepared to accept the consequences of George’s logic. No doubt you are aware (Victor may not be) that George is an anarchist. Given the premises of anarchism, George may have some basis for his arguments. He could (potentially, since I obviously cannot speak for him) defend his case as follows:

Individuals have the right to be free from the initiation of physical force.

Governments have no legitimate authority to act on behalf of their citizens, and thus cannot properly exercise the use of physical force in a given geographical territory.

No citizen in any nation has any right of self-defense against the citizens of predator states, because no government in fact represents its citizens.

Individuals in a predatory dictatorship who have not individually initiated force have the right to be free from foreign aggression in war.

Any conflict between nations amounts to my tribe against your tribe.

Note that this argument (the anarchist argument, which I previously mistakenly called 'George's argument') requires the inherent illegitimacy of all government as a premise. George's non-Objectivist views would naturally lead him in that direction. Are you prepared to endorse anarchism? Because that is where your arguments (that governments, in effect, have no moral authority to represent their citizens) should naturally lead you.

Here is the Objectivist argument, in essence:

Individuals have the right to be free from the initiation of physical force.

Individuals delegate the right of retaliatory force to governments, in order to create a society where force is excluded from human relationships and to place the use of force under objective control.

Government is the [objective] entity empowered with exclusive responsibility for exercising the use of physical force in a given geographical territory.

If government abuses the use of retaliatory force and initiates the use of force against foreign citizens, the citizens of the aggressor state must take the consequences. Since they effectively empower that government, they must take responsibility for restraining it.

Of course, it is very relevant to note that a society based on anarchism—where force is not placed under objective control--will inevitably lead to tribal warfare of just the kind you describe, where there is no such thing as the individual rights of the citizens of a free nation. But that is more logic which you may prefer to bury in more extensive verbal obfuscation.

Dennis

Edited October 9, 2006 by Dennis Hardin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I probably was not clear.

Quoting Rand extensively and then announcing to the world that we must toss out her thinking because the quotes prove that she contradicted herself will not work.

The fact that you say this makes me think I was not clear. I did not say toss out her thinking. I think it needs to be analyzed and put into perspective since it varies a lot on this issue. Logically, I do not find quoting her to be good grounds for debating this issue since one set of quotes from her contradicts another. For every Rand quote you give me - once again, on this issue, not on anything else - I will give you another that contradicts it.

To begin with, they do no such thing. But beyond that, you have to show how she is wrong.

(sigh)

Please reread the posts from the beginning. But if you like, I will dig up the pertinent posts.

You have said nothing to disprove the Objectivist position.

Here we have a point of contention. I do not recognize the ARI position (Biddle, Brook, etc.) as the Objectivist position. On the contrary, it grossly flies in the face of my understanding of Objectivism. Outside of anything else, killing intellectuals wholesale is not Objectivist, I don't care who claims it is.

I would like to clear up another misunderstanding. I am not an anarchist and I am aware that George Smith is. I think our different stated views of rights in war clearly show differences. We both (and many, many others) see tribal collectivism in what is being advocated by ARI, but that does not mean that I subscribe to anarchist views. It only means we both see tribal collectivism where it exists.

It also does not mean that I wish to shackle the USA military to keep it from fighting to win, deny right of self defense of a free nation (ours), wish to kill our own soldiers, am an altruist or any other such ideas. I have been very clear so far as to my positions on these subjects.

There is a false dichotomy being projected by those who advance the ARI argument: either accept their tribal collectivism (but don't call it that) or be an altruist (or whatever). That's nonsense. I go a third way. Philosophically, I am a rational principled thinker, ethically I am a rational principled individualist, and politically I am a rational principled patriot (and capitalist).

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis:

"George's argument" -- What is the reference?

"Objectivist argument" -- What is the reference? (You did somewhat better here than with the previous.)

"Dennis's argument" -- I assume it is the "Objectivist argument?"

I think you did very poorly with George's position. He supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. So did I.

--Brant

Edited October 9, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Victor Pross]

Dennis,

You are obviously a very intelligent man. But sometimes you confuse me. You make it a point in your posts to call people on what you see as their 'inappropriate use of false argumentation' while doing it yourself!

Now it’s time that I point out one of your own attempts:

My isolated quote of George H. Smith does not sweep me, by some inexorable logic, into conceding anarchist premises --wheather I know it or not. I don’t understand how you managed to take two and two and come up with six. George’s commit is a stand-alone observation—one that does NOT decree or speak to any political stripe. It simply sounded like a human being calling for reason, but also tempered with a heart. [edit: MSK pretty much says the same thing in his own post above, we cross here].

By the way, the quotes were not from some other site, but are to be found here at OL:

George H. Smith: "The last thing any Objectivist should do is glorify war, or treat it as some kind of noble endeavor when the killing of innocents is the topic of discussion. War, however necessary it may be at times, is a dirty, nasty business; and there is neither glory nor nobility in killing innocent people whose only "crime" is the misfortune of having been enslaved by a dictatorship."

And:

"Dan [Edge] later stipulated that only non-Americans are fair game. I didn't realize that respecting the rights of innocent people is contingent on where they were born, or what group they happen to belong to...This will require that we tinker with the philosophical justification for rights, which will now be based on the nature of a "tribe qua tribe" rather than "man qua man"...But having seen other disturbing trends towards tribalism on SOLO, I suppose Dan's response should not have surprised me."

Dennis, how are you able to extract an anarchist position from these quotes? This could have very well been spoken by a liberal or soft conservative or your grandmother who may be a-political. I stand by what George has said here.

Incidentally, I know George is an anarchist. I have had the pleasure to meet the man and we spoke a great deal about philosophy. He delivered a lecture at some summer camp here in Canada some seven years ago. It was very interesting, to say the least, sitting across from George H. Smith before a fire roasting marshmallows rapping about history, Ayn Rand and philosophy. Damage [Wayne Simmons] was also there.

Speaking with George was a pure delight, and I learned a lot. It was rather surreal too. He also happens to be a fan of my work and has tried to secure a gig for me as an artist. So I am not ignorant of George H. Smith.

Victor

Edited October 9, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Dennis Hardin]

Dan (belated response),

Thanks for the kind words. I sincerely hope you will continue to participate in discussions here. The emotionalism, acrimony and sarcastic vitriol that the current topic has engendered are not typical of Objectivist Living. Most of the discussions tend to be intelligent and respectful and make an effort to avoid disparaging and insulting those who disagree. Kat and Michael deserve credit for creating a unique forum for Objectivist discussion.

Sadly, many of the posts on this thread are unworthy of OL. They reflect all the intellectual depth of religionists attacking abortionists as baby-killers and murderers. You demonstrate considerable skill at thinking in principle, and—as the current thread clearly indicates--we can use all of that we can get.

Michael,

I will look forward to reading your clarification of how you disagree with the Objectivist argument (as shown in my previous post). Thanks for taking the time to further clarify your views.

Brant,

I suppose the main reference you are asking about is SOLO PASSION. I regret describing the anarchist argument as “George’s argument,” since I certainly have no business speaking for him. (I have edited my original post to reflect this.) I am aware that he supported the invasion of Afghanistan, although I have no idea how he (as an anarchist) would go about defending that view. “Dennis’ argument” and the Objectivist argument are certainly identical. If you find fault with either of the arguments I presented, please let me know where.

Victor,

Sorry, I will have to postpone a response until later in the week. Reality (and the inexorable demands of daily living) beckons…

Dennis

[CNA]

Dennis wrote:

Since they effectively empower that government, they must take responsibility for restraining it.

Dennis, I understand the situations in war where there may be times that more drastic measures need to be considered. But I have a few questions for you and maybe you can shed some light on this issue.

I understand the unfortunate circumstances of kids being used as human shields, etc., and it becomes truly unfortunate. But aside from that, can you explain to me how the taking out of innocent children that are not working or supporting the government in some way can bear responsibility as being the aggressor and empowering their government?

As for other Ayn Rands, etc., I also understand the idea that they empower their government by working, etc., and that they are supporting the government, dictatorship, or what have you. But how do you account for the individuals within that country that truly are other Ayn Rands or John Galts or Howard Roarks that have not been able to escape yet and are in hiding; obviously they are NOT the aggressor but they are slaughtered anyway? Obviously they are against the war and more than likely support our country but haven't been able to escape yet.

I also understand Ayn Rand's idea of rights being raised to the national level and it does pose some problems. But when you are down there in real life face to face with individual people; such as, another Ayn Rand or individual kids, it becomes very difficult to keep the idea of collectivism in mind and that they are all out to get you, especially when reality is screaming in your face that they are NOT the aggressors but they are shot anyway. In this instance, it flies in the face of reality. You know, I am very familiar with war as my father is a huge war buff, extensive knowledge in it and I was exposed to a lot as a kid. I may not be familiar with certain wars, etc., but I understand it enough.

But what I am talking about right now is about innocent kids that obviously do not support their government and their being shot in the back or what have you or those that are against their government but haven't been able to escape yet. How are they attempting to justify this type of action, aside from collectivism and that they are ALL to be considered the aggressors? Is there any more indepth thinking on anyone's part in regard to this issue?

Also if anything and everything goes as there are no more rules, there is no code of ethics and how you are to conduct yourself, meaning there is no accountability for your actions. The war crimes I am sure would be immense from mutilation, torture, anything to inflict the most amount of pain but short of death.

Also is this a scenario amongst only rational men in our armed forces or is this a scenario as to how it is currently in our society?

Also out of curiousity, have you ever seen war time action yourself where you've had to actually kill someone yourself? If so, no need to post it, but how did you feel with that one killing? If you felt poorly for taking the life of someone else that you knew was not the aggressor, how do you think you would feel if you took 500 lives or more from children that obviously do not support their government, to other Ayn Rands or John Galts that haven't been able to escape yet?

I'm not looking for a debate. I'm only looking for some clarifications. That's all.

Angie

[CNA]

Or if anyone who has some form of understanding into what is being proposed by some, can help clear these areas up for me or any misunderstandings that I may have.

Also I wanted to say that I am not looking for AR's views. I am looking for the reasoning into these areas of those that are proposing this kind of action or if anyone knows what they are. I am sure AR has never said anything about the killing of innocent kids that obviously do not support their government, dictatorship, etc. I've already given my views of it. I'm just looking for more information as to further clarification into this. I am also looking for those that are proposing or support this idea and if they have actually seen war time battle themselves and if they've had to kill anyone they knew could not defend themselves and were not aggressors or supporters of their government, how it made them feel, what they were thinking, etc., when taking the life of someone else they knew was innocent. I know a lot of this that is being proposed is rationalizations. Right now, I'm looking for more concrete information, more reality based, as to actual experiences, introspection, etc., into any of these areas of taking innocent lives that are being proposed from anyone that supports this.

Ange

Edited October 10, 2006 by CNA

[Dennis Hardin]

Victor,

You ask: “How am I able to extract anarchism from George’s argument?”

This is how: He states that it amounts to tribalism to say that “only non-Americans are fair game.” This drops the context that Americans live in a free society under a government that respects individual rights. This is the essential principle which separates us from Iran, not the geographical area in which we live. (I feel sure he would agree that the real issue is where a person chooses to live, not where they were born.) The fact that George, as an anarchist, does not recognize the moral authority of the US government prevents him from considering anything as relevant other than our national identity.

Now—a sad note.

After seeing Diana Hseih’s comment at SOLO PASSION about your drawing, Victor, I took another look at it. That is what has provoked me to take some time out of my schedule to post another comment, when I really should be attending to other matters. I ignored the cartoon initially, passing it off as too silly to be worth any attention. But the fact that you portrayed Diana in the nude—and that Michael has endorsed your little prank—has permanently stained “Objectivist Living” as anything but a respectful forum for Objectivist discussion. I have been an outspoken critic of much of what Diana has had to say, but this is disgusting beyond belief.

I thought OL wanted to set itself apart as a website that refused to stoop to the level of such insulting, mindless tripe. It is almost as if you wanted to earn the stamp of “immoral” that others have been so eager to throw your way. Congratulations.

I’m curious. Kat—are you okay with this? Are other members of OL going to remain silent on this issue—or, much worse, endorse it as Michael has? If so, this may well be my final post. I am embarrassed to call myself a member here.

Angie,

I can tell you devoted significant time to your post, and that you are very sincere in your questions. If OL decides to become a decent, respectful venue again, I promise to give an equally thoughtful response.

Dennis

[CNA]

Dennis,

Thank you but I didn't spend that much time on it, maybe 45 minutes, if that but thank you. It doesn't take me long to come up with questions and to draw a conclusion. I've been doing it for the past 17 years so I've gotten quite good at it by now. Ask anyone that knows me personally. Anyway, I think my questions are obvious holes in what is being proposed, especially in regards to children not supporting their government and some not being able to defend themselves but they're shot anyway but I guess I won't be getting my questions answered any time soon now.

I was especially curious as to if you or anyone else that supports this idea has spent time in a combat situation where you've had to take the life of another, especially if you knew they were innocent. I'm sure Biddle hasn't or Perigo or Diana or whoever else supports this idea hasn't.

Angie

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Brant,

I suppose the main reference you are asking about is SOLO PASSION. I regret describing the anarchist argument as “George’s argument,” since I certainly have no business speaking for him. (I have edited my original post to reflect this.) I am aware that he supported the invasion of Afghanistan, although I have no idea how he (as an anarchist) would go about defending that view. “Dennis’ argument” and the Objectivist argument are certainly identical. If you find fault with either of the arguments I presented, please let me know where.

Dennis

You want to know how George, as an anarchist, could have defended the invasion of Afghanistan. If you think it was difficult for George, consider how hard it must be for Tim Starr to be defending the ongoing war on radical Islam against fellow anarchists.

Brant and I have been members of the same e-list as George H Smith for years. Just after 9-11, George H Smith argued that it didn't matter that the Government - in the name of the people - was ordering troops to invade Afghanistan. They were there to bring swift justice to those that caused 9-11. The Government, in this context, was operating just like a justice agency he would financially support under an Anarcho-Capitalist system.

Btw, I agree with your arguments. Dan and you have done a fine job.

Wayne Simmons

[CNA]

Damage, I see you are online now.

Have you been in a combat situation and have you had to take the life of another, especially one that you knew was innocent and unable to defend themselves? Just curious, that's all.

[Brant Gaede]

Victor, I don't particularly like your caricature. The one you did of Linz was a lot better. And the nude was untoward to say the least.

--Brant

[CNA]

Brant or anyone here,

I haven't been on O'ist sites for long but I've heard and have read and have seen many many many many nasty things coming from SOLO as well as other sites. If you put yourself out there, you are a target. It's that simple. In my personal opinion, the main charcater in this caricature is more damning than a silly nude. What is so different from others that you have seen compared to this one? Why is this so personal to so many people? I've been an O'ist for the past 17 years, well before I ever knew who Ayn Rand was. I have never even been to the ARI or any meetings, etc., so I really could not care. But again, I will say, in my personal opinion, Biddle is more damning than a possible nude. Is it because she took this so personal, that she can't laugh about it? If that is the case, I find that to be very interesting. Hell, I was recently called an Internet Whore and I'm laughing my ass off over it because I know it is not true and those that matter to me and that are close to me know it is not true. But does anybody else know it? No. But do you think I really give a shit? HELL NO. Why? Because I couldn't give a rat's ass about how others that do not know me view me.

Honestly, what's the big deal here? Right now, I'm viewing this as an overreaction. If anything, she should be laughing at it. I would be. I've been laughing my ass off because someone said I was an internet whore. Maybe that's the huge difference in self-esteem between me and others.

Edited October 10, 2006 by CNA

[Brant Gaede]

It simply has to do with my personal taste in such matters, Angie. If caricatures were "fair" they'd be no fun and nobody would do them or be interested in them. Of course Biddle deserves what Victor gave him though I really don't get the Diana Hsieh allusion or why she's depicted nude. I don't care that she can't take it. Maybe that's the payoff, that she can't. It's not that I'm prudish; it's just that I don't have a caricaturist's sensibility in such matters. I use words, words that can be responded to. A lot of people on these lists are at war with each other deeply in a way that I'm not and never have been. I'm always looking for the response that out argues me or provides me with new information. That's why Linz thought I was wishy-washy or worse. I don't drive stakes into the hearts of vampires, but that's the nature of caricature. All my life I've wanted to know things better. When I was twelve in a very real and wrong sense I knew it all. My brain and moral consciousness were simply overpowering my ignorance. (I am referring to the Hungarian Revolution when I wanted the United States to do something to help the Hungarians and couldn't figure it out.)

--Brant

Edited October 10, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

About the nudity in the drawing, I would agree with your tirade if pornographic nudity were presented. But it so happens that there is a thing called artistic nudity. Victor works with visual "puns." Part of what he was conveying in his drawing was Hsieh taking a "spiritual bath" in the mushroom cloud - with all that means metaphorically - even as a "Guardian Angel of Darkness" - and nobody takes a shower with their clothes on. (Incidentally, I did not see that until it was finished, but I took no offense when I saw it since I "got" the pun.)

If you have ever have a chance to read Hsieh's blog, you will see sometimes contains references to fellatio (except she prefers much more vernacular expressions) and sex in its various forms and stuff like that - talking about the sexual acts themselves. So there is certainly no chaste public image thing to protect involved here (although, to be fair, I did see something on her blog once about her being a bit squemish about her own nudity around strangers). I haven't seen too much of this stuff on her blog these last few weeks, but it has not been that long either.

Of course, that would be no excuse to make a pornographic drawing of her. But I have no doubt that Victor's reference was much more spiritual and hardly pornographic at all.

As for nudity itself being disrespectful, I think I have been in Brazil too long. USA attitudes seem so strange to me now. It seems so obvious to me that one would hardly call The National Gallery of Art a disrespectful place, yet it is filled with artistic nudity - some of which is just as sketchy and satirical as Victor's.

Would you say that a huge number of films coming out of Hollywood by stars like Clint Eastwood, Al Pacino, etc., (and lots of beautiful actresses) are disrespectful to the point you would not watch them because of the nudity? How about on Cable TV? But we can even get much closer to Objectivism.

About half a century ago, Ayn Rand gave a very famous interview in Playboy Magazine, which had several photos of naked women in poses that can only be called soft porn. Maybe there was something "disrespectful" about Rand that should be condemned?

I could go on, but the way I see your argument - contrasted against Biddle's pronouncements - reminds me a great deal of a line from the movie, Apocalypse Now, that Marlon Brando (as Colonel Walter E. Kurtz) said near the end:

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene!"

I submit that a simple satirical nude drawing showing spiritual orientation in terms of life/death is not obscene against preaching genocide or using lethal force to eradicate intellectuals.

Just in case you are in doubt about genocide, here is a definition from Kat's post No 5: "Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (Mirriam-Webster)

Note this includes political groups.

Now here is Biddle (referenced in my post 307): "Rather, we should engage in a massive and sustained air assault on Iran until all the Islamists there are dead. Yes, all of them."

How about another? Here's another referenced in the same post. There are others, but why go on?

"In conjunction with the other elements in this 5-step plan, we should kill the Iranian preachers and teachers who chant and spout 'Kill the disbelievers' and 'Death to America.' We should aim to kill all of them."

We apparently have different values. I hold that genocide is obscene, not artistic nudity.

Michael