THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[Guest Damage Inc.]

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.

Angie, of course you know the answer to your questions. I fail to see your point. I don't want to preform surgery, but I'd advocate that people should go into medical school. Surgeons can save my life, so can the military.

And, please, read - or re-read - my post about living under a expansionist Dictatorship.

Furthermore, have you ever considered how innocents could be called on to do evil? Consider the scenario where, person A has a loaded gun in his hand and is pointing it at person B. Now, person C has a loaded gun to person A's head and tells him to pull the trigger. Let person C be the Government. The gun may not be literally at his or her head. But, you know the threat exists to you and/or your friends and family. You also know that they'll do it.

Wayne Simmons

Edited October 10, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[CNA]

Wayne or Damage,

Like I said, I'm fully aware of the ramifications of war, etc. The reason I asked the question was to see what you would say. Of course, I knew the answer. It is sometimes difficult to draw an accurate conclusion when you have no first hand knowledge of it. The obvious example you gave, yes, if I was put into that situation, you better believe I would defend myself. I don't have a problem with our governments role, etc. That's not what I'm contesting. And I've unfortunately have had experience of being in situations such as that where it becomes a life and death situation but no govt involved. Some posts of mine were deleted when the site went down a few months ago. But aside from that, one of the areas I am against is the killing of innocent kids, babies, etc., where it is obvious they cannot defend themselves. These kids do not fall under the O'ist guidelines so to speak of what is being proposed. These kids do not support or empower the govt as they contribute nothing and some are incapable of defending themselves but they are shot anyway. This is what I'm talking about.

No, I haven't read anything that you've written. If you can point me in that direction, I will read it. I'm assuming the post is on this thread, if so I will look for it, or is it posted on another thread?

That is what I was asking is if you have ever had to take the life of another, *especially* (emphasis here) if you knew they were innocent and/or unable to defend themselves. But that's what I was asking and of course I know the answer. But would you be willing to kill kids that truly cannot defend themselves? Or kill kids that are running for their dear life but they are shot in the back anyway because they are viewed not as individuals but as the collective group of aggressors?

The things that I have read about, what is being proposed this is what they are advocating. Trust me, I don't need to have things explained to me. I already fully understand all scenarios that go along with it such as the one you gave. But one of the parts I am having a problem with is their reasoning about kids and their thinking that a very small child or baby has the rational faculty to do the dirty work of their govt. This is not grounded in reality at all. Yes, I'm aware of Vietnam, etc., and some of the events that happened there with kids. I'm aware of that. But I am sure 1.5 year olds or 2 year olds weren't doing the dirty work. I'm sure they were much older. If this is not true, please correct me or anyone correct me.

I want to understand more thoroughly into their reasoning into kids and those people where it is obvious they are NOT the aggressors; such as, other Ayn Rands, John Galts, people that are running for their dear life, people that are in hiding, people that are not for the war, etc., but truly haven't been able to escape but they are nonetheless viewed as being the aggressor and are shot. I know their view of collectivism on a national level but it is a little difficult, at least for me, to keep this in mind when I know damn well that not all of them will be against me and the aggressor such as the exmaples I've given up above of individual people running for their life, etc., or kids. To me, it sounds like they, Biddle and followers, just want to completely eradicate the entire country.

Angie

p.s. I wonder how many times I can edit this post.

Edited October 10, 2006 by CNA

[Barbara Branden]

Dennis: "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."

Don't you think you're jumping a bit too fast? I agree with you that Victor should not have portrayed Diana

as nude, I don't like it and I think its pointless; it has nothing whatever to do with the issues that Biddle

and Diana stand for and that a caricature is intended to satirize. And Michael, if Victor intended to convey

that she was taking "a spiritual bath," there is no way in the world that anyone looking at the drawing

could know that. But surely, Dennis, one shouldn't judge a forum by the errors or insensitivity of one

or two -- or three or even four -- posters. Objectivist Living is a "respectful forum for Objectivist discussion," and that occasionally a poster must be forcefully reminded of that fact doesn't change it. I

doubt that you would judge an individual, in whom you saw value, by as few mistakes in the form of

disrespect or insensitivity as have occurreed on this forum.

I hope you'll reconsider. You are an important and valuable member of OL, and I, personally, would

hate to see you leave.

Barbara

[Dragonfly]

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.

This is an example of the ridiculous hypocrisy of on the one hand rationalizing and even glorifying the mass extermination of innocent people and on the other hand taking offense at a hint of nudity in a cartoon. The same hypocrisy that characterizes all those Americans who haven't any problem with endless violence and killings on television, no matter how cruel and how much blood is spilled, but who become completely hysterical at the split-second view of a half-bare nipple on the screen.

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.

Yes, I endorse it heartily. If you're embarrassed, go away! You don't belong here anyway, Solo is your home, there they'll adore you.

[Kat]

QUOTE

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.

Where did this come from and who is Dragonfly quoting here?

I am not sure what I am supposed to be okay with. This is a very long thread that had a few detours. I do for the most part agree with what Michael has been saying about targeting innocents and that Biddle and company are promoting genocide. I don't expect everyone on OL to agree with our political views, but why would that be taken as a personal insult and cause for embarassment? Was there something I missed? I have been working horrendous hours and my mom has been in the hospital so I have not been following the discussions as closely as I should.

Kat

[CNA]

Kat, I was around lastnight when some of this stuff happened. I think what Dennis is referencing is if you endorse the nudity of Diana that is depicted in Victor's caricature and that it is posted on OL as Michael has endorsed it. All of this has to do with the ridiculous idea that a silly caricature drawing of Diana being nude is reprehensible and *immoral* and that OL has sunk this low. Give me a fucking break.

But Dragonfly references the hypocrisy of it that Dennis supports the mass murder of innocents but freaks at a nude caricature drawing. I am truly laughing at all this, all of this is completely absurd.

At least that is what I got from what happened. If this is not it, then anyone correct me. But the quote the Dragonfly is referencing is Dennis' quote from his last post on this thread and that quote has to do with his finding the nude caricature reprehensible and immoral.

Angie

Edited October 10, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Artist statement:

An artist should be left free to express himself however he or she wishes. What Objectivist would say otherwise? If there is anybody who thinks Rand should have “toned down” her controversial views—or should have not included certain sections in either her fiction or nonfiction—please speak freely. They should have told her directly in her life time. Imagine the feed-back that would get.

An artist always comes up against those who tell him that he should have done something or other--things they cannot do themselves. As a caricaturist, of course I find this funny.

I am a visual artist. I also happen to be very well versed in the Objectivist view point on art—especially in the application of “selectivity.” There were suggestions put to me by some as to what I should include in the drawing and should not. Some of those suggestions made sense to me, and some others didn’t. So I declined [or agreed] accordingly--as I saw fit. The point here is that I choose to include those things in the drawing that does speak to its theme. After all, I am the artist. I can’t help it if some “get it” and others don’t.

In regards to the current "controversy", I have provided some excerpts from two articles that should shine some light on how I approach my art.

***

Excerpt from “The Dark Side of Caricature”.

"Critics responded to my art as though it were sui generis, a self created eccentric without discernable origins. The opposite is the truth. The origin of my art is the culture itself. I paint and draw as if I were an alien intelligence from a distant realm. I contemplate my own human species with a bemused objectivity, as thought I was encountering them for the first time like David Bowie’s Ziggy. I am witness to the world around me, and my visual comments are, as they were when I was a child, reactions to the people I encounter."

"Given the above, and by their nature, my caricatures cannot come out decorous and beautifully detached: they must be, and are, charged with fear, horror, moral outrage, humor, and irreverence. You need an extraordinary gift for humor to laugh away all the perilous things in this world. After all, the word “caricature” comes from the Italian word “caricatura”---meaning LOADED PICUTRE."

Excerpts from “The Light Side of Caricature.”

"It’s fair to say that the art of caricature—or even more broadly speaking, illustrations—doesn’t get its due respect among the artistic literati. However, this snobbish attitude is disappearing in subtle increments as time moves along."

"It has been said by a media commentaries that my work conveys “smirking irony and hilarious juxtapositions” and I suppose one of my paintings comes to mind that would fit this description: the miserable looking existentialist playwright Samuel Beckett stands with a fixed gaze as a Pollyannaish 1970s ‘happy face’ hovers above. In another portrait we see John Lennon and Yoko Ono standing front and center, as they appeared on their album ‘Two Virgins’ --naked as Jaybirds. Yoko is holding a rather tempting apple…to suggest the Garden of Eden...or perhaps the business venture, Apple Corp."

"Why am I attracted to the art of caricature at all? I am reminded of a quote from no less a source than Leonardo da Vinci—an artist who explored exaggeration in his own art: “Faces display in part the nature of men, their vices and temperaments.” Indeed, in my portraits I have tried to convey the whole stories about the lives of my subjects: Mick Jaggaer’s dark sex appeal, Ronald Reagan’s cartoon patriotism, Humphrey Bogart’s hard-edged masculinity."

***

Edited October 10, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Wayne,

You wrote:

"Furthermore, have you ever considered how innocents could be called on to do evil? Consider the scenario where, person A has a loaded gun in his hand and is pointing it at person B. Now, person C has a loaded gun to person A's head and tells him to pull the trigger. Let person C be the Government. The gun may not be literally at his or her head. But, you know the threat exists to you and/or your friends and family. You also know that they'll do it. "

This scenario does not make person A evil. How can an "innocent" person be evil in this one situation--by definition? False argument. Logic, man, logic! You should know better. Come on, now.

Victor

Edited October 10, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Angie,

You wrote to Dan Edge:

I've found your post rather offensive. I'm appalled that you would have the audacity to come over here to OL and try to sell this...

Dan was recently awarded a full scholarship to study at OAC (Objectivist Academic Center) of ARI.

Several of us are harshly criticizing Craig Biddle and other ARI intellectuals.

You draw your own conclusions.

(I am still waiting to see if his coaches will let him answer my questions...)

Michael

Mike,

Yes, the observation and conclusion is highly accurate and I have drawn my own conclusions regarding *that* aspect. I've drawn my own conclusions regarding other areas but wanting more indepth thinking in regards to a few points I've brought up and I doubt I will get a straight answer from Dan or Dennis or an answer at all. It really isn't that hard to answer and may take a few minutes to answer it or maybe 10, 15 minutes, if that. They are very direct questions but so far none have stepped up to be counted for it. I wonder why. I say evasion and they don't want to publicly admit to it.

Angie

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Wayne,

You wrote:

"Furthermore, have you ever considered how innocents could be called on to do evil? ...."

This scenario does not make person A evil. How can an "innocent" person be evil in this one situation--by definition? False argument. Logic, man, logic! You should know better. Come on, now.

Victor

I agree. I wrote about an innocent person doing evil, not that he/she *is* evil.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I suppose I am going to have to address the following point:

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.

I cannot tell you what to do with your life. You must choose your own values.

I find civil disagreement valuable, so your presence is and will always be welcome.

In my life, however, whenever I find that I am embarrassed to be associated with someone, I don't make a production out of it. I change the situation fast. If you really do feel such embarrassment to be here, as someone who wishes you well, I certainly do not want you to do violence to yourself. And I certainly am not comfortable being cited as one of the sources of your embarrassment.

OL is an honorable forum and will continue to be so with or without your presence. You have no effect on that whatsoever. As pertains to your presence, so long as you do what is right in your own eyes, it will be good for OL. If you stay, that will be good for OL. If you leave, that will be good for OL.

You decide.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Dennis,

I don’t mean to offend those who are not the target of my dark caricatures. I really don't. I am aiming to offend those who are truly and objectively offensive: my subjects. That is, those who richly deserve to be the subject of my satire, because of what they advocate.

Really, you cannot stack the calling for genocide against a pair of bare cartoon boobs [small ones at that--off in the distance as well] as the focus of your indignation—not without a humorous inversion of priorities. As Lenny Bruce might have asked: if the breasts were bloodied and mangled, would that have made them less offensive?

My caricature was rendered with the best of intentions: it was meant to visually communicate that which has taken thousands of word to express by others, and it was done so as guided by my own moral standards regarding this issue.

In my satirical Lampooning, I am aiming only to target evil and corruption--but if the innocent happen to get hit…well it’s a matter of collateral damage.

Victor

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Brant,

Is not a picture worth a thousand words anymore?

Victor

What thousand words are you really communicating? Think about it for a moment, Victor.

Your caricature communicates a anti-war message. You come off as a pacifist. Now, if you got into a debate with a Pacifist about your real views he'd see little difference between you and Craig Biddle. There are differences, of course. But, those differences have been grossly distorted by you in your caricature.

So, lets get back to the topic.

Barbara Branden went on the attack with her "The Lepers Of Objectivism". Then the debate began.

But, curiously, we have little in the way of suggestions from Barbara Branden, et al, as to what should be done to stop this threat from radical Islam. It is only a matter of time before the next terrorist attack on a major city. We all live with yet another erosion of our freedoms because of the of the Islamic Totalitarian threat. I'd love to see the day when this threat is seriously dealt with.

Wayne Simmons

[Kat]

Dennis,

I did not see the final drawing until it was online. I'm not crazy about the idea of DH in it nude or even that she is in it at all. I think it is an unnecessary distraction from the main point of Biddle's Battle and many people will see a naked lady rather than the mushroom cloud she is in. Victor did have a reason to put her there like that (angel of death showering in a mushroom cloud), so I am ok with it overall. It is communicating a message. Would you have been nearly offended by the nudity if the overall message were more aligned with your own political thinking? Do you find the famous caricature by Girodet offensive? Is it nudity or opposing ideas that are being offensive?

If Victor's drawing did not cause a strong reaction in some people, it would not have not been a good lampoon. Victor Pross is a professional caricaturist and is very good at what he does . I think Biddle's Battle is a great drawing.

Also, I would not be ok with it if it were not a background image or if Craig Biddle were in the nude as well. Objectivist Living is still a respectable forum. I want it still to fall into safe search or moderately safe search on Google and I do not want to attract spammers and bots to this site who post links to pornography, viagra, etc.

If people do not want to see posts by certain people on the site, you can turn on the ignore poster function by going to their profile, clicking the profile options buttton and selecting "ignore user" to hide the content of their posts. We also have a report button at the bottom of posts that will send a message to me if you want to point out an offensive post. Michael and I will not know if something is bothering people unless they tell us. We like feedback about our forum, both good and bad and so please send us messages and tell us what you think either way and we will take it into consideration. Remember, posters speak only for themselves and not for Objectivist Living.

Kat

[Victor Pross]

Wayne

You are picking up an anti-war message. It is an anti Biddle message; his specific foreign policy is my target. That caricature may be interpreted as pacifist by a larger audience. But this is an Objectivist audience—who know that I am not a pacifist.

Caricaturing lampooning 101: subject is just as important as technique. I think it is lazy caricaturing if you go after easy targets. That is, why lampoon radical Islamic terrorists? Everybody knows they are the bad guys [everybody except certain wussy liberal types who’ll apologize to their killer for mussing his new suit with their blood].

Why not take your audience off guard by really surprising them and giving them something to *think* about? Bam! Left hook! Do you follow me here? I wanted to expose Biddle for what he really is: a blood-lusting blowfish. His ideas on this subject are abhorrent. But it’s not obvious that he is an appalling person because everybody’s attention is focused on their hatred and fear elsewhere—while missing out on other important details.

Think about this from my perspective: What’s the point of an easy target? Why make fun of, say, televangelists? Boring! Everybody—including many religionists—make fun of them. Why not target Mother Teresa? She is taken as an archetype of benevolence and love, but she was a horrible person. It sometimes takes guys like me to point this out.

Victor

Edited October 11, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara Branden went on the attack with her "The Lepers Of Objectivism". Then the debate began.

But, curiously, we have little in the way of suggestions from Barbara Branden, et al, as to what should be done to stop this threat from radical Islam. It is only a matter of time before the next terrorist attack on a major city. We all live with yet another erosion of our freedoms because of the of the Islamic Totalitarian threat. I'd love to see the day when this threat is seriously dealt with.

Wayne, that discussion took place five years ago on the old Atlantis. Now the United States is locked into its decided policies with the President trapped by his suppositions and policy inertia. I'll try to do something for this list toward the end of the month, for whatever it's worth. Other than that I'll only be reacting to what others post in this regard.

--Brant

[CNA]

Damage,

With all due respect, I don't think you have read any of my posts. I am not against war and I do see a great possibility of war in this situation. But it should not be done in the manner that is being proposed by some that call themselves Objectivists. But I do agree some type of action needs to be taken but to what extent of degree is the question. Strategic at first. With such a tiny nation, we can do much in the way of dismantling them but not in the way that some propose of taking out nurseries or other Ayn Rands and those that are of her true ilk just because they are viewed as the collective group of aggressors. This idea of theirs flies in the face of true reality that they are the aggressors, especially young kids and babies. It is the evasion of reason, evasion of your own senses, evasion of true reality to whack individuals where it is OBVIOUS they are NOT the aggressors.

I do not have time right now to get into a debate as I am working on many other things.

Angie

Edited October 11, 2006 by CNA

[CNA]

Damage and Dennis and Dan and whoever else supports this idea,

Why don't we take this discussion in a bit different direction, a little bit more of a reality check. Instead of Ivory Tower rationalizations, why don't we try to test this theory that has been proposed and see if it will hold any amount of water. But with a few conditions first or rules so to speak, let's imagine that the US cannot win the war quickly and our men, YOU, DAN, DENNIS, DIANA, and COMPANY, will be seeing actual ground combat. For a bit of a reality check here, let's try to use our imaginations and see if we can gain some insight, some type of experience, some type of firsthand knowledge of what this may be like and setting the scenario up according to what has been proposed.

But before we do this, maybe YOU, DAN, DENNIS, DIANA and COMPANY should watch some footage of actual ground combat where there are visuals of kids, babies, etc., that is being depicted and visualize yourself ACTUALLY being there and then ask yourself some very very important introspective questions as to whether or not you are willing to kill these kids or maybe another Ayn Rand, a woman you so greatly admire, because individualism no longer applies, reason and your senses no longer apply.

This thread has been mostly Ivory Tower Rationalizations. Maybe it's about time we take this discussion in a bit different direction, a little bit of a reality check. Is anyone that suppports this idea of theirs willing to imagine themselves in a real life situation with kids being present and killing them at random and however many you want because they are viewed as the collective group of aggressors and then ask yourselves some very very important introspective questions and ready to PUBLICLY admit to the TRUTH. So far, NO ONE from that CAMP as answered my very simple, very direct questions. It truly only calls for a YES or NO answer. It's very simple. BUT most here keep skirting around those questions and not willing to answer them. It truly is very simple to answer those questions I've posed in a very direct manner of YES or NO.

Remember, HONESTY and REALITY and REASON and FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE is of UTTMOST importance in this philosophy amongst many other factors. Any evasion of any of these flies in the face of true reality. So with that said, let's change direction of this thread.

Angie

Edited October 11, 2006 by CNA

[dan_edge]

Angie,

Your post didn’t actually contain a question, so I’ll have to guess at what your “YES or NO” question actually is. Here’s what I think you’re asking:

“*If* slaughtering children at random in an enemy country were an effective military tactic for defeating an aggressor nation, and *if* doing so would be the best way to preserve the long term freedom of my country, *then* would I, personally, be willing to join the military and participate in the slaughter?”

Phrased this way, my short answer would be "yes," but the question is rationalistic and wrongheaded from several angles. First off, there is no evidence that randomly slaughtering children is an effective military tactic. You may as well have asked "If it were necessary to brutally rape vegetables in the enemy country in order to acheive victory, then would you do it?" Well, yes, but the burden of proof lies with he who proposes such a tactic. The military effectiveness of targeting civilian populations and infrastructure is well documented throughout history. It's not always the best tactic to use, but it shouldn't be taken off the table either.

Note that your emotionalist method of argumentation closely resembles that of the liberal preaching welfare. "But what about the children!?! Would you, personally, be willing to walk by a poor, starving child on the street and let him die? You don't hate children, do you? Just answer YES or NO!" You haven't argued at all against the principle I have offered, namely that a defending nation has a right to do anything it must to defeat an agressor nation. Nor have you argued that targeting civilians is an ineffective military tactic. In fact, you haven't dealt with my arguments at all. Your response has been to repeat the "But what about the children!" refrain.

I answered your question more fully on the SOLO website. Here is a copy of my answer:

The specific targeting of pre-schools would certainly be immoral and counter-productive, but not for the reasons [some] are offering. It's not wrong to bomb toddlers because we would be "violating their rights." We are no longer under any obligation to respect their rights from the moment their government attacks us. It would be wrong because it would have no military function, and would actually be counter-productive. Toddlers do not contribute to the war effort, and specifically targeting them would not frighten an enemy into submission, but more likely would encourage them to fight until the last man.

My operating principle is:

A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

If one operates off of this principle, he rules out the wanton slaughter of innocents. Any decision to target enemy civilians ought to be made on the basis of military effectiveness. It must contribute to ending the war. Torturing toddlers and bombing elementary schools and raping pets and (whatever other crazy things you want to rationalistically fantasize about) are *not effective tactics for getting an enemy to stop attacking*.

Brooke and Epstein made this point in their "Just War Theory" article:

"If it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world. Rational, selfish soldiers do not desire mindless destruction of anyone, let alone innocents; they are willing to kill only because they desire freedom and realize that it requires using force against those who initiate force. Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation."

I agree.

--Dan Edge

[dan_edge]

Angie,

As long as we’re outside of the Ivory Tower for the moment, I’ll make a deal with you. If it is determined that targeting civilians would be an effective tactic in the war against Islamism, and the US decides to do it, then I have to join the military and help. But if it is determined that targeting civilians would be an effective tactic in the war against Islamism, and the US decides *not* to do it, then you have to help bury all of the additional US soldiers and civilians who will die because we don’t have the moral confidence to wage Total War. And while you’re doing that, explain to their families that they died for a good cause, because civilians in the aggressor nation were allowed to live for their sacrifice.

Before agreeing to this deal, you may want to “watch some footage of actual [terrorist attacks on the US and Israel] where there are visuals of kids, babies, etc., [being slaughtered by Islamic terrorists] and visualize yourself ACTUALLY being there and then ask yourself” if you can deal with the consequences of your decision.

YES or NO?

--Dan Edge

Edited October 11, 2006 by dan_edge

[Brant Gaede]

My operating principle is:

A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

If one operates off of this principle, he rules out the wanton slaughter of innocents. Any decision to target enemy civilians ought to be made on the basis of military effectiveness. It must contribute to ending the war. Torturing toddlers and bombing elementary schools and raping pets and (whatever other crazy things you want to rationalistically fantasize about) are *not effective tactics for getting an enemy to stop attacking*.

Questions: 1) Any defending nation? What if the US attacks Cuba? Whose "rights" then go into the crapper? 2)How do you reconcile your views with Biddle's, who wants an attack on schools and mosques when most likely to be full of students and worshippers?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

The question actually stems down to two issues. (I know you have no interest in answering questions, only in asking leading questions and ignoring the answers when they are not what you expected, but still, for reasons of my own, I see no reason to let this issue be argued in a way that sneaks in other ideas that are morally wrong without saying something.)

1. The first issue is one of context and morality. The ARI military argument is clear in that military necessity is far more important than morality or rights in war, thus the military should be given a carte blanche to do whatever the leaders determine (so long as it is called "defense against an enemy aggressor") in all cases and without context. The basic thinking is that when leaders of a nation attack a free country, moral correctness only exists for the attacked country in all contexts and the citizens of the enemy country lose all their rights in all contexts.

2. The second issue is how to deal with antagonistic ideas. The moral way is to use force to combat force and ideas to combat ideas. The ARI military argument is that the military should kill, through a a genocidal military effort, all antagonistic intellectuals for promoting antagonistic ideas. (Biddle quotes are here.)

There is no way in hell I will ever agree with any of that.

Enemy armies captured in combat are treated better than what ARI wishes to do with Islamist intellectuals. Also, oppressed people under a dictatorship have no rights to lose. This is just empty verbiage to justify genocide.

I am not defending Islamism or Islamist intellectuals. I despise world domination ideologies. But Islamist intellectuals should be treated in the same manner we treat Nazis, Communists and other people who have adopted world domination ideologies - and dealt with severely - not dealt with by genocide.

Incidentally, I critiqued your post on Solo here.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Dan,

In principle, I agree with you: a nation should defend itself when attacked. But I have a few problems with your post as you have presented it.

You argue as if Angie were approaching this as if she were a pacifist or was opting for the children of an enemy aggressor to that of a nation defending itself. She is not. And you know it. But it is rather convenient to simply reinstate broad principles of self-defense without furnishing us with any context, as MSK pointed out--yet AGAIN. It would seem that you are the rationalist who disdains to concretize broad floating principles.

More over, look up at the heading of this specific thread. It deals with the definite foreign policy as advocated by Biddle. You see, I will deal with the question of context and thread topic.

For example, consider this gem:

“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.”

Now, instead of dancing around the camp fire of general principles, I would like a “Yes” or “No” answer to the following question [i can’t resist, sorry]: do you agree with the above statement? Do you not see it as “collectivistic”? If not, how isn’t it? I—and others here—would argue that it is collectivist—and immoral. But please, a Yes or No answer, followed up with an explanation is wanting.

Meanwhile, let's move along.

Let's take a look at a quote from you:

“The specific targeting of pre-schools would certainly be immoral and counter-productive, but not for the reasons [some] are offering. It's not wrong to bomb toddlers because we would be ‘violating their rights.”’

Oh, really? So the children—individual innocent human beings—no longer have rights? Ayn Rand did not speak of “the rights of individuals” but rather the rights of nations—or the “rights of defending nations.” So there is no ethical questions here, just a pragmatic consideration, i.e. the “military effectiveness” is the only question? Perhaps you are aware of such a phenomenon known as “war crimes” which does have moral import.

Finally, to quote Biddle again:

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

Why not kill the children of enemy parents [as a means of torture] to “extract usual information”? Anything goes, right? There are no ethical considerations or accountability?

Try again, Dan. You'll get it right.

Next time, let’s keep to the thread topic. Let’s not dance around general principles—and leave the pragmatism at the door and provide examples and context to ground your argued principles.

And—what have you to say of Biddle’s over all foreign policy?

Victor

Edit: Yes, that’s right, I did read Rand’s Objectivist epistemology, and I know how to apply it.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Dan,

Listen, I know it can be difficult defending yourself while trying to both apply and advocate the philosophy of Ayn Rand—and not find yourself being critical of Craig Biddle where you would, surely, incur the ire of SLOP and ARI heavies [yes, there are clashes] --I don’t envy that fence you are straddling. Politics and philosophy can make strange bed-fellows, huh?

“Hmmm, on the one hand, I have Ayn Rand’s philosophy…and on the other hand, I have what Craig Battle Biddle is advocating.”

Edited October 11, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Dan,

You obviously have not read any of my posts or any questions that I've posed, not in this post but in prior posts, although you have inadvertently answered a few already. I agree in certain situations that it is not immoral and should be an option left on the table but in CERTAIN CONTEXTS only and I have already provided an example in a prior post where I would support it -- here. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If you would have read my posts, you would see that I have already stated this and would support it but in certain circumstances only. I am definitly NOT a pacifist and you know this. But I need more context.

What do you or they consider to be a *threat* to preserving our *long term* freedom?

Edited October 12, 2006 by CNA