Intellectual debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Rich Engle]

And there you go, again. Did you say go hire a hooker? Nice! Does that make you feel better, saying such things?

I might also point out that one doesn't have to go tiger style in order to be honest and straightforward.

Maybe you're not enough sure of yourself to relax, and cut the little stabby-poos. You should be sure of yourself, you are very, very good.

You just don't present all that well. Easy to fix. It's a stylistic thing, Shayne. I know the place. Oh, I could show you posts. If you went to NB's site and went way, way back in the archive, you'd see me being you. Worse.

I've had a few transgressions since I chose a different path of engagement, but I'm a solid 90 percent as far as not doing that thing I did.

I found this out: it's a lot harder to not use the sword. It is a bigger challenge, and there's a reason for that.

So easy to go on the snip. There's nothing to it. I'm real good at it. Much better than you. The difference is that I know it to be an impediment. You consider it a necessity, I suppose. I dunno.

But for sure, your tone is nasty as hell. It will, for sure, get in the way of you getting your ideas out. Take that to the bank, sporty-pants<---mild, very mild example of how I used to be.

I'll read you in any event. You're good.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We all have standards of civility. We usually judge how much civility to use by our environment. Behavior in a pigpen is not appropriate for a fancy drawing room and vice-versa.

I formally eschewed the "insult first and ask questions later" approach on Internet forums (which I had allowed myself to be seduced into practicing) because I have had a hard life. I have seen what this gets you out in the real world: maimed or dead.

I also don't like what it does to me inside. It brings up macho feelings of competitiveness on a level that is nonproductive. I mean that in a literal sense. My greatest competitor is my own limitations, not any other human being. I spend long hours studying and producing. It's hard, but it's worth every second and every ounce of energy. I look to reality as my standard of excellence. (Please do not confuse this with admiring other people for their virtues and achievements. I judge them by the same standard of excellence that I do myself: reality.)

When I engage in a nasty verbal competition, I can "score points," etc., and some of this makes me feel good in a Tarzan kind of way. But then, when it is over, I look at all that work that is still left to do... And all the time I used up that now feels wasted... And all the emotional and intellectual effort I expended that makes me too tired to do any of the productive work... And then the next day, the entire production of being nasty evaporates and nothing is left. Often the memory is more bitter or irritating than pleasurable.

I prefer my writing (and other constructs I produce). I am proud of my achievements. So I choose civility. It is a conscious choice. Civility is not a 100% rule of conduct, but it is for the vast majority of situations I encounter. I stay focused on my work that way and do not get sidetracked with unimportant distractions.

Civility is not against Objectivism, either. On the contrary, Rand herself endorsed good manners.

I was present at one of Rand’s Ford Hall Forum lectures in the early 70’s ("The Moratorium on Brains" in 1971). In the Q&A, someone asked Rand if she really canceled someone’s subscription because they disagreed with her. I remember her being very uneasy all of a sudden and this sudden change of attitude jumped out at me. This impression is all the more apparent in my memory because, at that time, I was blissfully unaware of the break with the Brandens and all other contentious matters concerning the Objectivist world, other than the fact that I did not like the few Objectivists I had met because they were obnoxious. I found the question in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 131-132. Here is the quote:

Q. Is it true that you canceled some subscriptions to The Objectivist because of letters certain subscribers wrote to you?

AR. I don’t read those letters, but my office has instructions and carries them out. I don’t cancel subscriptions if someone disagrees with me—that’s his loss. But I do when the letters are rude and crude. It’s not an issue of ideology, but of manners. I reject the modern conception of manners: I don’t have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to, anyone who doesn’t know how to disagree with me politely.

I know this quote has been tampered with. (I remember her saying some other things that jumped out at me back then, but they are not relevant to the present point.) But I agree with its essence as is, except that I have more tolerance for rudeness than she did. That doesn't matter, though. I maintain my moral right to get fed up with rudeness whenever I please.

Michael

[jack9f]

This is ironic.

I'd call it ironic squared!

My first reaction to this thread was very good. Jeff; you make me feel, yes feel, hopeful. You are evidence for my arguement against "These kids today....".

Then there was this strange reaction from Shayne, much of it charged with emotion. I don't know what more to say.

[sjw]

Then there was this strange reaction from Shayne, much of it charged with emotion. I don't know what more to say.

Well you haven't said much other than to make a vacuous attack, so I'd think there's a lot more to say. Afraid of getting specific, or just don't know how to? Or, maybe you like tossing in non-objective criticisms of people who disagreed with you? That's the true irony here--tolerationists can't decide if they want to play nice or get even more vicious (since nothing's more vicious than an unsubstantiated attack--at least when I attack, I leave you the means to defend yourself).

[sjw]

I maintain my moral right to get fed up with rudeness whenever I please.

The question I have is: whose rudeness are you referring to? Yours, when you said I couldn't read, or yours when you called me evasive and refused to answer a very simple and honest question I had (and still have)? And if your rudeness was indeed included, then why haven't I gotten my answer yet?

[Rich Engle]

It is clear that Michael was making a general statement. All roads don't lead to Shayne.

[sjw]

It is clear that Michael was making a general statement.

And I asked if it generally included his rudeness or not.

All roads don't lead to Shayne.

Why do you preach tolerationism while dishing out gratuitious insults? I think this kind of hypocrisy is the defining characteristic of a tolerationist, and you keep proving me right over and over.

Here's the deal: tolerationists approve of approval, they disapprove of criticism beyond a certain arbitrary point (and who knows where that line is--depends on whose little feelers are getting hurt I suppose). But a rational, objective, and just person will dish out either depending on what's deserved. By arbitrarily limiting well-deserved criticism, they inenvitably become unjust, and intolerant toward the rational.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yours, when you said I couldn't read...

Shayne,

Maybe I was mistaken. Maybe you are constantly misquoting me on purpose—like above (for one very brief example among many). I have better things to do than keep trying to fix this.

Michael

[Kevin Haggerty]

Then there was this strange reaction from Shayne, much of it charged with emotion. I don't know what more to say.

Well you haven't said much other than to make a vacuous attack, so I'd think there's a lot more to say. Afraid of getting specific, or just don't know how to? Or, maybe you like tossing in non-objective criticisms of people who disagreed with you? That's the true irony here--tolerationists can't decide if they want to play nice or get even more vicious (since nothing's more vicious than an unsubstantiated attack--at least when I attack, I leave you the means to defend yourself).

So calling your reaction to Victor's essay "strange" and characterizing it as "charged with emotion" constitute a "vicious" and "unsubstantiated attack" in your book? Seems to me, Ivan was making a pretty harmless observation, harmless unless you seek to deny having any feelings. Certainly, if he made such an observation of me, I would in no way feel attacked, only described, accurately or inaccurately as the case may be. There's a context here, Shayne, one of which it would seem every poster on this thread other than yourself is fully aware. Within that context which you deny, your original post seems strange to me as well. Your second post doubly so.

Are you suggesting that your posts in this thread are not "charged with emotion?" Or is that an entirely irrelevant comment in your eyes--your emotions are not an appropriate topic for rational discussion? Or is describing someone as "charged with emotion" de facto pejorative? Or is it simply against the rules to discuss someone's emotional state, because it's ad hominem?

The trouble is, Shayne, the topic at hand is our emotional states and their specific relevance to any discussion. Victor made the blanket statement that everyone is, from time to time, blinded by their emotions. You asserted that there are those who are never blinded by their emotions.

That's quite an unsubstanciated statement of your own right there.

The logical assumption is that you count yourself among that number. And thus, your own blindness or lack of blindness in the face of your emotions is specifically relevant to the discussion. If it ain't, then you need to substantiate your claim that such people exist, don't you? Where are they? Who are they? And how do you know they are never blinded by their emotions?

-Kevin

[sjw]

Maybe I was mistaken. Maybe you are constantly misquoting me on purpose—like above (for one very brief example among many).

I didn't quote you. I paraphrased. Why did you accuse me of misquoting you when I didn't quote you at all? I used no quotes. Obviously I didn't mean to say that you said that literally. Why do you accuse me of misrepresenting you while you keep doing it to me?

I have better things to do than keep trying to fix this.

You are the one who shifted things from the discussion at hand to this tolerationist nonsense. You are the one who refuses to resume the actual conversation and answer very simple easy questions I asked in good faith. Of course, now you won't back down from it. Is that because you think the tolerationist stuff is more important, or do you really just not want me to examine your true views on this emotion/reason balance thing?

[sjw]

So calling your reaction to Victor's essay "strange" and characterizing it as "charged with emotion" constitute a "vicious" and "unsubstantiated attack" in your book? Seems to me, Ivan was making a pretty harmless observation, harmless unless you seek to deny having any feelings. Certainly, if he made such an observation of me, I would in no way feel attacked, only described, accurately or inaccurately as the case may be. There's a context here, Shayne, one of which it would seem every poster on this thread other than yourself is fully aware. Within that context which you deny, your original post seems strange to me as well. Your second post doubly so.

I don't recall saying I was harmed in any way. What he said was indeed "harmless". Why do you wish to project the view that I think what he said was harmful?

What I really think is that what he said was a gratuitous, baseless criticism whose only purpose is a tribalist "I'm with you guys, not with that strange guy". So it's vicious in that sense. In the sense of a rhetorical piling on someone without actually having the courage to face their arguments.

Are you suggesting that your posts in this thread are not "charged with emotion?"

Are you trying to drop the context of what is really meant by that phrase? Because it was not intended to mean just what was stated. Emotion in debate is healthy. He didn't mean that. He meant I was being irrational. But again, he lacked the courage to face my arguments, while he made that accusation.

Or is that an entirely irrelevant comment in your eyes--your emotions are not an appropriate topic for rational discussion? Or is describing someone as "charged with emotion" de facto pejorative? Or is it simply against the rules to discuss someone's emotional state, because it's ad hominem?

I think you're straining to not see. Clearly what I was being accused of was not merely having emotions (something approved of by the tolerationists anyway).

The trouble is, Shayne, the topic at hand is our emotional states and their specific relevance to any discussion. Victor made the blanket statement that everyone is, from time to time, blinded by their emotions. You asserted that there are those who are never blinded by their emotions.

That's quite an unsubstanciated statement of your own right there.

So? So far you've all seemed more interested in attacking me than in exploring whether or not my assertion is true. You continue to attack. Right now you attack me by implying that there's something wrong in making a claim without substantiating it.

The logical assumption is that you count yourself among that number. And thus, your own blindness or lack of blindness in the face of your emotions is specifically relevant to the discussion. If it ain't, then you need to substantiate your claim that such people exist, don't you? Where are they? Who are they? And how do you know they are never blinded by their emotions?

More ad hominem. The logical assumption is to not put words in my mouth. I neither affirm nor deny what you attribute, precisely because I know I'd be inviting more tolerationist insults by doing so, regardless of which way I answered.

You know, we got started on a discussion about emotions, and maybe could have ended up trying to answer these questions, but then (predictably) the tolerationist hypocrisy took over and I got piled on. These are obviously big questions and it's just as obviously futile to try to answer them while simultaneously trying to deal with all this irrationality coming from everyone.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't quote you. I paraphrased.

Shayne,

Correct. My mistake.

My line should have read:

"Maybe you are constantly paraphrasing me with incorrect meanings you invent on purpose—like above (for one very brief example among many)."

I would be more than willing to continue, but this is the kind of distraction that is boring me (the incorrect paraphrasing, not the clarification). If it stops, we can resume and I will be glad to give you any examples you require (and explain the ones you apparently didn't understand) all day long.

Michael

[sjw]

"Maybe you are constantly paraphrasing me with incorrect meanings you invent on purpose—like above (for one very brief example among many)."

The way I read this, you are calling me a liar, that I lie constantly. Maybe you think that is something I "invented" too? Maybe you think that if we add "maybe" to the front then things are less insulting? So if I say "maybe you're being a hypocrite", then my post won't get deleted?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Liar? I don't know. You do.

I do know that your paraphrasing is incorrect and it is constant. You show no attempt at proper understanding. (Even the liar thing just now shows the same process.)

Like I said, it's boring.

Michael

[sjw]

Liar? I don't know. You do.

I do know that your paraphrasing is incorrect and it is constant. You show no attempt at proper understanding. (Even the liar thing just now shows the same process.)

I understand what "maybe" means, and it hardly requires much effort to understand. What I think is really going on is that you don't understand what making an unsubstantiated charge means. Adding "maybe" doesn't give you the license you think it does. I respond as if you said it without the "maybe", because it boils down to that in effect. So it's not at all an issue of me not having a proper understanding, it's that I see things differently than you.

Not every disagreement is a purposeful distortion Michael. I would think that you should be the last one I should have to say that too given your lecture above.

Like I said, it's boring.

I for one would rather see you clarify your views on emotion.

[Danneskjold]

Shayne said:

The question I have is: whose rudeness are you referring to? Yours, when you said I couldn't read, or yours when you called me evasive and refused to answer a very simple and honest question I had (and still have)? And if your rudeness was indeed included, then why haven't I gotten my answer yet?

There's enough rudeness to go around in this thread. Seeing as misunderstandings and many other different things have only seen rudeness as the response.

Rich:

It is clear that Michael was making a general statement. All roads don't lead to Shayne.

Actually that post seemed quite pointed at Shayne.

Kevin:

So calling your reaction to Victor's essay "strange" and characterizing it as "charged with emotion" constitute a "vicious" and "unsubstantiated attack" in your book?

He didn't call it vicious. In fact, judging by his next posts I would say he doesn't even think it was bad. Although I think that he also appreciates specific examples of how it was "strange". Which isn't necessarily uncalled for.

Kevin said:

The logical assumption is that you count yourself among that number. And thus, your own blindness or lack of blindness in the face of your emotions is specifically relevant to the discussion. If it ain't, then you need to substantiate your claim that such people exist, don't you? Where are they? Who are they? And how do you know they are never blinded by their emotions?

Why is that the logical assumption? The assumption I made is that Shayne believes it possible to be that way.

Kevin said:

The trouble is, Shayne, the topic at hand is our emotional states and their specific relevance to any discussion. Victor made the blanket statement that everyone is, from time to time, blinded by their emotions. You asserted that there are those who are never blinded by their emotions.

That's quite an unsubstanciated statement of your own right there.

Wouldn't Victor have to prove his statement that everyone does it from time to time? And seeing as "everyone" is quite the blanket, it makes it hard to prove.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I think is really going on...

...

So it's not at all an issue of me not having a proper understanding, it's that I see things differently than you.

Shayne,

Nope. It is having a proper understanding of my words and then making a production out of "trouncing" your own misunderstanding.

My problem is that you attribute incorrect meanings to my statements (prefacing the errors with things like, "What I think is really going on..."). It goes beyond seeing things "differently." It is seeing them incorrectly.

You ain't in my mind. I am.

I get tired of saying that I mean what I said, not what you paraphrased.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Hmmm. Well, we are seeing the 'bad' and the 'ugly' in intellectual debate--let's get back to the good. Does anybody want to talk about the subject matter of my original post?

[sjw]

Hmmm. Well, we are seeing the 'bad' and the 'ugly' in intellectual debate--let's get back to the good. Does anybody want to talk about the subject matter of my original post?

That'd be nice.

[sjw]

I get tired of saying that I mean what I said, not what you paraphrased.

Do you agree that it's possible for a person to say something but not recognize the full implications? I.e., to mean something they don't intend to mean?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you agree that it's possible for a person to say something but not recognize the full implications? I.e., to mean something they don't intend to mean?

To mean something they didn't mean? To whom? To themselves? No.

To be unclear? Yup.

And it's also more than possible for someone to not read it correctly.

Michael

[Kevin Haggerty]

He didn't call it vicious. In fact, judging by his next posts I would say he doesn't even think it was bad. Although I think that he also appreciates specific examples of how it was "strange". Which isn't necessarily uncalled for.

Jeff, Shayne said in his posted response to Ivan "nothing's more vicious than an unsubstantiated attack." I thought he was saying that Ivan's remarks were unsubstanciated and constituted an "attack," ergo vicious to a degree that equals or exceeds all other viciousness.

Why is that the logical assumption? The assumption I made is that Shayne believes it possible to be that way.

The reason is that the only certain knowledge we have of human nature is ourselves and our perceptions of other human beings. The only way that he can know that a particular person is "never" blinded by emotion, is to have working knowledge of their every moment. Hard to do, unless you're the person in question.

He didn't say "it is possible" that a man might reach a point where he is never blinded by emotions, he said, "The truth is that *some* people are often blinded, some are rarely blinded, and some are never blinded." He knows this. I wonder how.

Wouldn't Victor have to prove his statement that everyone does it from time to time? And seeing as "everyone" is quite the blanket, it makes it hard to prove.

Not if his statement is common to everyone's experience. Victor wasn't presenting a mathematical proof, he was generalizing. I doubt he was expecting anyone to come at his remarks from the angle Shayne chose. To me, nothing he said seemed at all outrageous or particularly question begging. Did it to you?

-Kevin

[Danneskjold]

As I said before, the discussion on this thread is very ironic.

[sjw]

Do you agree that it's possible for a person to say something but not recognize the full implications? I.e., to mean something they don't intend to mean?

To mean something they didn't mean? To whom? To themselves? No.

To themselves. And I mean as in an implication of what they are saying that they deny but is true nonetheless. I.e., they mean what they say on one level, but deny the logical implications. E.g., I don't think I misrepresented you when I said you accused me of evading rather than answering my question about "what example?" But if you don't agree with me RE implications, then you might think I was misrepresenting. I'd disagree. That doesn't make it the case that I'm purposefully distorting what you're saying.

[Victor Pross]

Not if his statement is common to everyone's experience. Victor wasn't presenting a mathematical proof, he was generalizing.

What I am witnessing are people who announce themselves as—lo and behold--absolute devotees of reason, logic and facts! And I see them becoming particularly emotional! So never mind the average Joe---who is not philosophically as reflective as the professional or self-styled intellectuals here—and who therefore allows himself to be swept away like a bug in an undercurrent by any emotion he happens to feel. Hey, this thread is my scientific experiments and I’m looking down on everybody through my freaking microscope right now. :homestar: