Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ginny,

Xray is not here to discuss anything seriously.

She is here to poison the well. On any front she can...

I am still observing and analyzing why...

Michael

[Xray]

Ginny,

Xray is not here to discuss anything seriously.

She is here to poison the well. On any front she can...

I am still observing and analyzing why...

Michael

Who would consider truth as poison?

In my prior post, I answered to Ginny's question by elaborating on a point she had raised. Feel free to point out what you think was "poisoning the well".

[Xray]

Now "objective value" means you can't leave it be which means it's not an "objective value."

--Brant

Objective values don't exist. Therefore adhering to values one believes to be objective is adhering to a fallacy.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Feel free to point out what you think was "poisoning the well".

Xray,

Why, that's easy. In your very next repetition post.

Objective values don't exist. Therefore adhering to values one believes to be objective is adhering to a fallacy.

This is stated by a person who isn't able to say what objective means, other than say it means what it doesn't mean and it is a consensus of experts.

See?

Poison, if you can get someone to take you seriously...

Michael

[Xray]

Feel free to point out what you think was "poisoning the well".

Xray,

Why, that's easy. In your very next repetition post.

Objective values don't exist. Therefore adhering to values one believes to be objective is adhering to a fallacy.

This is stated by a person who isn't able to say what objective means, other than say it means what it doesn't mean and it is a consensus of experts.

See?

Poison, if you can get someone to take you seriously...

Michael

A few posts ago, I suggested you use Rand's definition, which we'll compare to the lexicon entry I gave, and then we'll take it from there if you wish to do so.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Thanks, but no thanks.

Do carry on with the poisoning...

Michael

[Selene]

Folks [Prussian Valkyries excluded]:

You know, objectively, when word gets out that the well is poisoned, folks will either die drinking from it, or

word will get around in the reality surrounding the well, that the well is poisoned.

Early on with x-ray "poisonings" I picked up the pattern you just referred too because it was off, just slightly,

but at a very important level. I did not have the words to describe what I sensed way back about it.

You just provided it. I do remember, when I greeted her, I made a comment about her handle along the lines of providing

penetrating insights, or words to that effect.

Ahh well, learn and live.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I basically said that in another thread.

Xray always gets something slightly wrong, not totally wrong, then she preaches this error in strong terms. I think she does this on purpose to engage people and I think it is a learned technique of engagement.

It's a great magnet (called psychological trigger in persuasion jargon) because it preys on a person's benevolence to help others. If you think she is making such a strong claim in good will, you want to correct her so she will not make a fool of herself. It doesn't occur to you that she doesn't care because she's just baiting you. She learned how to bait people and her payoff is the spirited engagement, not the substance of the idea.

One of the good things about studying people like her is that you are forced to look at these techniques.

Take a look at this issue of "all values are subjective." It is obvious that she does not have a clue about what objective means other than a vague notion she picked up in the culture. This isn't just an impression. She is prolific, so she got it wrong a large number of times. Yet that does not stop her from preaching that objective doesn't exist with values.

Where she is good is that when the definitions she copy/pastes are shown to be not logically relevant to her point, she asks the person who presses her for a definition of objective. She says he agreed with her about this or that. She has a number of comebacks to sidestep the issue. If he backs up and insists that if she is going to preach a fact, she should know what that fact means, she invites the person to discuss it.

The fact that she doesn't actually know what she is saying yet she preaches as if she does know kinda gets pushed over to the side.

Also, technique-wise, if you can throw a target off with an emotion like exasperation, he makes mistakes. Then you can jump on the mistakes. So even after she makes it clear that she doesn't actually know what objective means, she will still preach as if she did. If anyone is taking the discussion seriously, he gets exasperated at the contradiction.

She's good at playing these games.

Notice that she does this (both getting things slightly wrong and preaching the errors, and preaching that all values are subjective, which is her main magnet) starting over from zero with new people on different threads. It's as if none of these other discussions ever took place.

In fact, I am learning a trick or two off of her.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

All my salespeople were Sandler trained which I suggest you look at if you are not already familiar with the "system". http://www.sandler.com/

They "find the pain". but they use negative reverse prompts, "dummy curving" (she does dummy curving, but again, she is just tone deaf from a sales perspective).

Heck she is a public educator in the new world where even plants have feelings.

Adam

[Xray]

Xray always gets something slightly wrong, not totally wrong, then she preaches this error in strong terms.

What is "slightly" wrong? If I say 2+2 = 5, is it slightly wrong or simply wrong?

If there exists something as slightly wrong, then there also exists something which is "slightly right" I assume?

Please quote the specific passages from my posts which you believe are "slightly wrong", explain why you think they are, and disprove them.

I think she does this on purpose to engage people and I think it is a learned technique of engagement.

Engaging people into doing what? Checking their premises? And as for asking questions, it is no learned technique, but something which comes natural to all of us human beings. Starts pretty early in life and never ends.

she does not have a clue about what objective means other than a vague notion she picked up in the culture. This isn't just an impression. She is prolific, so she got it wrong a large number of times. Yet that does not stop her from preaching that objective doesn't exist with values.

Michael, I suggested you use Rand's definition of "objective" if you feel more comfortable with it.

You refused to use it.

In fact, I am learning a trick or two off of her.

Why would you want to use any tricks? Does truth need tricks to be conveyed? Can't it stand on its own? :question: Edited July 3, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CB1tBjcWug

[Michelle]

Adam,

I basically said that in another thread.

Xray always gets something slightly wrong, not totally wrong, then she preaches this error in strong terms. I think she does this on purpose to engage people and I think it is a learned technique of engagement.

It's a great magnet (called psychological trigger in persuasion jargon) because it preys on a person's benevolence to help others. If you think she is making such a strong claim in good will, you want to correct her so she will not make a fool of herself. It doesn't occur to you that she doesn't care because she's just baiting you. She learned how to bait people and her payoff is the spirited engagement, not the substance of the idea.

One of the good things about studying people like her is that you are forced to look at these techniques.

Take a look at this issue of "all values are subjective." It is obvious that she does not have a clue about what objective means other than a vague notion she picked up in the culture. This isn't just an impression. She is prolific, so she got it wrong a large number of times. Yet that does not stop her from preaching that objective doesn't exist with values.

Where she is good is that when the definitions she copy/pastes are shown to be not logically relevant to her point, she asks the person who presses her for a definition of objective. She says he agreed with her about this or that. She has a number of comebacks to sidestep the issue. If he backs up and insists that if she is going to preach a fact, she should know what that fact means, she invites the person to discuss it.

The fact that she doesn't actually know what she is saying yet she preaches as if she does know kinda gets pushed over to the side.

Also, technique-wise, if you can throw a target off with an emotion like exasperation, he makes mistakes. Then you can jump on the mistakes. So even after she makes it clear that she doesn't actually know what objective means, she will still preach as if she did. If anyone is taking the discussion seriously, he gets exasperated at the contradiction.

She's good at playing these games.

Notice that she does this (both getting things slightly wrong and preaching the errors, and preaching that all values are subjective, which is her main magnet) starting over from zero with new people on different threads. It's as if none of these other discussions ever took place.

In fact, I am learning a trick or two off of her.

Michael

She's only feeding off of the energy you guys are putting into the discussions, you know.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suggested you use Rand's definition of "objective" if you feel more comfortable with it. You refused to use it.

Xray,

My problem is not my definition of objective. It is that you don't have one, yet you preach like you do.

You have claimed in copy/paste that objective means "not subjective," and you have claimed that objective is something set by a consensus of experts. But I am confused as to how to find these experts, or choose which is right when they disagree.

You need more than that to validly affirm that objective does not exist, yet you preach like you have the meaning. And you do so in a vast number of posts.

I find that fallacious at best.

Michael

[Xray]

She's only feeding off of the energy you guys are putting into the discussions, you know.

Feel free to quote from my posts here on this thread where you think I'm in error, and explain why. TIA.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I can say.

"All values are subjective," without knowing what that means.

That's what and how you preach.

That's worse than an error.

That's preaching what you don't know and knowing you don't know it.

btw - Do you have a meaning for objective?

(Other than "not subjective," or "consensus of experts"...)

Michael

[Michelle]

She's only feeding off of the energy you guys are putting into the discussions, you know.

Feel free to quote from my posts here on this thread where you think I'm in error, and explain why. TIA.

It was an observation, not a criticism. I don't know what your motives are, and I have no real desire to speculate. I figure you have your own reasons. That's good enough for me.

[tjohnson]

btw - Do you have a meaning for objective?

(Other than "not subjective," or "consensus of experts"...)

Michael

OK, surely you guys can agree on what 'objective' means? Usually it means more or less without the influence of emotions. For example;

-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

[tjohnson]

Here is another definition;

- of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

PS - I'm not sure anything can satisfy this definition but that is another issue - or maybe it is THE issue

Edited July 4, 2009 by general semanticist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Take a good look at your meanings. Do they tell you really how to know what "objective" means?

Let's see (from your first post):

Not emotions.

Not personal feelings.

Not interpretations.

Not prejudice.

That's a lot of "nots." Why is there not one "is"?

Well, here's something positive:

Based on facts.

OK. What exactly is based on facts? And how do I separate this from "subjective"?

You hint at an answer in your next post:

Something that can be known.

OK. Once again, how do I separate this from "subjective"? What does "be known" mean? Xray is big on telling everyone how values can't be known, other than "subjectively." But I can't figure out from her voluminous number of posts how she thinks anything is known "objectively."

How about this other one?

Existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

I can even buy that one, but how do you know it? Xray thinks you can know it because it is not emotion, not personal feelings, not interpretations, not prejudice, etc. But from that I know what it is not. So what is it? Here she is a bit clearer, She believes a consensus of experts nails it. But she has not yet said what to think when these experts disagree or even how to choose them.

Anyway, I don't buy the idea that objective facts are subject to vote.

So back to my original point. Xray has no idea of what objective means, even though she claims quite dogmatically that it cannot be applied to values. I know you tried to help her out, but it didn't go very far.

Michael

[tjohnson]

OK. Once again, how do I separate this from "subjective"? What does "be known" mean? Xray is big on telling everyone how values can't be known, other than "subjectively."

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want. I think it is not a question of what the value "is". For example, I'm sure she won't argue that food exists but whether or not it is considered valuable depends on the individual case.

[UncleJim]

OK. Once again, how do I separate this from "subjective"? What does "be known" mean? Xray is big on telling everyone how values can't be known, other than "subjectively."

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want. I think it is not a question of what the value "is". For example, I'm sure she won't argue that food exists but whether or not it is considered valuable depends on the individual case.

If the value of food is subject to the the whim of personal choice then starving to death is a rational consequence of trying to live without it.

[Xray]

OK. Once again, how do I separate this from "subjective"? What does "be known" mean? Xray is big on telling everyone how values can't be known, other than "subjectively."

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want. I think it is not a question of what the value "is". For example, I'm sure she won't argue that food exists but whether or not it is considered valuable depends on the individual case.

That was exactly my point, GS.

[Selene]

Folks:

A pebble objectively exists.

I can sense it exists.

It exists whether I am there or not to sense it.

A pebble is an objective "thing".

I can apply value to that "thing" for a number of effects or results.

This to me is how I know it exists.

Adam

[Xray]

OK. Once again, how do I separate this from "subjective"? What does "be known" mean? Xray is big on telling everyone how values can't be known, other than "subjectively."

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want. I think it is not a question of what the value "is". For example, I'm sure she won't argue that food exists but whether or not it is considered valuable depends on the individual case.

If the value of food is subject to the the whim of personal choice then starving to death is a rational consequence of trying to live without it.

That depends on why a person chooses not to ingest food. An anorectic for example may indeed try to live without food and die later.

Whereas a person planning to die of starvation does not want "to live without food". This person plans to die, the means chosen to achieve the goal being food deprivation.

As for "whims": arbitrarily labeling something as a "whim" is a classic example of an entirely subjective value judgement on Rand's part.

In short, what one person calls a mere whim may be another person's purpose in life.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray has no idea of what objective means, even though she claims quite dogmatically that it cannot be applied to values. I know you tried to help her out, but it didn't go very far.

l

You allege that I have "no idea" what objective means - then would you please enlighten me what it means?

Edited July 4, 2009 by Xray