Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Looks like I got my own thread amongst those who do not like me (an orthodox-leaning Objectivist forum catering to young people).Michael Stuart KellyThanks, kids. Good premises. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 btw - Where would I be without the lovelies in my life? Hat tip from Barbara. Kori saying nice things about me over there. Kat's still in England, but she'll be back tomorrow, thank goodness.Life is good... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAMF Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) It was irritating to me to wake up today and see a thread dedicated to you in a place where I know you'd be attacked. I was actually recommending this site to some people in OO chat, and your name came up. Mammon (a friend of mine) was curious where he'd heard your name. I told him, "Well, he's not very well liked around these here parts...and most other parts..." BUT, then he goes off and makes a thread about it. LOL. Well, though it's a pleasure to put in a kind word for you, I am glad the thread is closed. I'd hate to see an MSK-insult-fest...I don't want to put on my battle gear.(I continue to put in kind words, Michael, and I continue to urge people to see for themselves!)*beckons* Edited August 27, 2007 by Kori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiodekadent Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 (edited) "His recent toleration of plagiarism (the most severe case I have ever seen) on his site that has gone on for months (despite complains from some of the members) is especially worthy of others attention." Extending a chance to change, giving due time, and then banning the plagiarist in question, does not under any circumstances constitute "tolerating" plagiarism. It constitutes giving someone a chance at self-improvement, and then taking the appropriate actions after said chance was expired.If the member that posted the above actually cared to look deeper, said member would have realized that the extremely unfortunate plaigiarism incident was not 'tolerated,' it was dealt with in a considered and benevolent manner. I may be a young Objectivist but I am not fond of the 'true believer' stance so many Objectivists in my age group embrace. I love Objectivism because of its embrace of independent thought (among other things), but what I have seen on OO often (not universally, but often) shuns independent thought, indeed any philosophical development on the basis provided by Rand. The simple fact is that there are two possible Objectivist positions: 1) Everything Rand said is correct, full stop and 2) Rand's essential philosophy is correct, but Rand was not infallible. In short, if someone disagrees with the Woman President thing, they concede the debate to 2. If they concede the debate to 2, then the open-system faction (i.e. Us, TOC, the Kelley faction) has won (intellectually). And the amount of "how one person attacks Ayn Rand" type posts... oh dear. Some people really have to stop this Platonistic closed-system-Rand-worship and start practicing the theory of knowlege that they preach.I am not one to shy away from morally condemning people that deserve it. However, judging someone completely immoral, i.e. absolutely lacking in any worth and rationality at all, is in no way an easy thing to do and takes much more time than a ten minute chat on philosophical beliefs, or spending time on their forum for ten minutes either.On an Amazon review of Contested Legacy by Kelley, one reviewer says about the Objectivist Orthodoxy that "These sorts of people delight, above all, not in creating values or living happily and productively, but in acquiring and exercising the power to CONDEMN, EXORCISE, REBUKE, VILLIFY, and EXCOMMUNICATE all of mankind." That is correct. O'ist Orthodoxy does have a very strong streak of moral sadism within it. Not moral certainty, which is good, but moral sadism, which is gaining pleasure from morally denouncing people. Howard Roark did not get his rocks off from being better than others and laughing at his lessers. Edited August 29, 2007 by studiodekadent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvir9 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Yes, Michael, you are evil for encouraging independent thought and for not bashing those who disagree with you . . .(*wink) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Looks like I got my own thread amongst those who do not like me (an orthodox-leaning Objectivist forum catering to young people).Michael Stuart KellyThanks, kids. Good premises. Michael Michael - But don't you sort of wish you could be damned by a better class of people?Alfonso (smiling) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 Alfonso,Nah. They are mostly good kids who are struggling with ideas and still full of piss and vinegar.Now if they were the old farts... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now