Dagny and the Guard

[Matus1976]

I'm not conceding anything, but I'm not interested in prolonging a discussion with someone who is twisting my words, putting words into my mouth that I never said and who thinks that using invective is OK. I'm ready to discuss any point in detail with a civilized person, but you don't belong in that category.

Funny I have had in depth discussions and disagreements with many people on this forum, MSK included, yet you are the only person to charge me as such. Have I suddenly changed the manner in which I carry on discussions, or perhaps as is more likely, have you run out of your obfuscations? Why cant you just come out and say it, you think Rand has a secret callous murderous agenda and only you were clever enough to figure it out.

[Selene]

I'm not conceding anything, but I'm not interested in prolonging a discussion with someone who is twisting my words, putting words into my mouth that I never said and who thinks that using invective is OK. I'm ready to discuss any point in detail with a civilized person, but you don't belong in that category.

Funny I have had in depth discussions and disagreements with many people on this forum, MSK included, yet you are the only person to charge me as such. Have I suddenly changed the manner in which I carry on discussions, or perhaps as is more likely, have you run out of your obfuscations? Why cant you just come out and say it, you think Rand has a secret callous murderous agenda and only you were clever enough to figure it out.

"You cannot read, wise guy. It wasn't me who wrote "post mortum", that was written by your Objectivist friend. I know my Latin. Please pay more attention next time. I'll plead guilty to "selden". I could make the excuse that English is not my native language, but it was in fact a typo, probably unconsciously caused by the resemblance with the Dutch word "zelden" = "seldom". BTW, it is not "occassional" but "occasional". And you don't understand what "ad hominem" means."

For the record, I am, not now, nor have I ever been a member of his 'Objectivist friend" group. Since you apparently are stating that "...English is not my native language...", which my people and all past "legal" immagrants [sorry just humoring myself for a moment - we know it is spelled immigrants.] have labored with, you still are missing my point.

This is a fine forum. I am completely new here. Basically, for four or five months.

I fail to understand why you are so "edgy" and personal in your vindictive terminolgy. Geez, smok a joint. Go outside and look towards Orion and view Mars with the naked eye tonight. It is in its closest proximity [did I spell this right oh lord of the spelling] until 2025. Chill. Relax. There is no reason or rational path to your vicarious vindictiveness.

Enjoy argument. There are many sharp writers on this forum.

Adam

[Ellen Stuttle]

I fail to understand why [DF is] so "edgy" and personal in [his] vindictive terminolgy.

Are you serious? Have you followed the course of this thread? (I mean, have you read the details of the exchange? If so, I would think you could see that Matus hasn't slowed down long enough to try to get correctly what DF has argued, while he's meanwhile taken an escalatingly intense, and increasingly -- up till his last, short reply -- long-winded, accusatory stance. Enough, I'd say, to unsettle any fly's wings.)

Ellen

___

Edited December 20, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

I fail to understand why you are so "edgy" and personal in your vindictive terminolgy.

One advice: just don't call people "dwarfs" when you yourself are not a giant. When in a glass house...

[bmacwilliam]

Funny I have had in depth discussions and disagreements with many people on this forum, MSK included, yet you are the only person to charge me as such.

ORRRLLYY???

[Matus1976]

I fail to understand why [DF is] so "edgy" and personal in [his] vindictive terminolgy.

Are you serious? Have you followed the course of this thread? (I mean, have you read the details of the exchange? If so, I would think you could see that Matus hasn't slowed down long enough to try to get correctly what DF has argued, while he's meanwhile taken an escalatingly intense, and increasingly -- up till his last, short reply -- long-winded, accusatory stance. Enough, I'd say, to unsettle any fly's wings.)

Ellen

___

I disagree of course, in fact I am calling attention to what Dragonfly is actually saying, and he makes no effort to counter those points. I have not 'slowed down' ? I have made every reasonable effort to understand what DF is arguing, and it is clear he is insisting insisting that Rand had hidden messages supporting a murderous callousness, his only evidence for this is one isolated passage taken outside of the context of the scene it was presented in, and another quote from a different book spoken by a protagonist and summarizing the the evil essence of collectivism. He has not even disagreed with this, and replies only with vague attempts at obfuscations on these points. I've asked numerous critical point questions to get him to identify exactly the basis for his points and he continually ignores them and again offers only red herrings and obfuscations.

I think it's pretty clear that DF's 'interpretation' was flawed at the outset, and now he is trying to hide / backtrack to not admit that.

[bmacwilliam]

I fail to understand why [DF is] so "edgy" and personal in [his] vindictive terminolgy.

Are you serious? Have you followed the course of this thread? (I mean, have you read the details of the exchange? If so, I would think you could see that Matus hasn't slowed down long enough to try to get correctly what DF has argued, while he's meanwhile taken an escalatingly intense, and increasingly -- up till his last, short reply -- long-winded, accusatory stance. Enough, I'd say, to unsettle any fly's wings.)

Ellen

___

I like this one from Matus the best

"Silly superficial ones [criticisms] based on unjustified emotional reaction and an utter lack of understanding on the topic? Or reasoned and thoughtfull ones based on good knowledge of a topic?"

This is from a guy who fancies himself a motorcycle designer and likely will never complete his 7 year running project.

Also he calls himself a scientist, and from what I can tell, has zero formal education. He fancies himself a physics buff, and I'd be shocked if he'd ever solved a differential equation in his life.

Same with philosophy - I'd be shocked if he studied or read (or could even understand) anyone other than Rand (and maybe a little of Aristotle because of Rand).

DF - Just call him out harshly on his stupidity and he'll ignore you.

Bob

Edit - And I find it so hard to believe that he's single too......

Edited December 20, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Matus1976]

If so, I would think you could see that Matus hasn't slowed down long enough to try to get correctly what DF has argued, while he's meanwhile taken an escalatingly intense, and increasingly -- up till his last, short reply -- long-winded, accusatory stance. Enough, I'd say, to unsettle any fly's wings.)

Ellen

__

I advise anyone who finds no value in my posts to go ahead and put me on ignore, as I long ago did with Bob Mac.

For all Bob's harranging, It appears he still fervently reads my posts.

[Matus1976]

I advise anyone who finds no value in my posts to go ahead and put me on ignore, as I long ago did with Bob Mac.

For all Bob's harranging, It appears he still fervently reads my posts.

Ah and now Bob is fishing through my profile, no doubt looking for things to make stupid comments about! Bob, what does obsessing over someone you think is pathetic make you?

[bmacwilliam]

I advise anyone who finds no value in my posts to go ahead and put me on ignore, as I long ago did with Bob Mac.

For all Bob's harranging, It appears he still fervently reads my posts.

Ah and now Bob is fishing through my profile, no doubt looking for things to make stupid comments about! Bob, what does obsessing over someone you think is pathetic make you?

Your profile is most amusing.

Still pretending not to read my posts I see...

Bob

[Philip Coates]

**related issues: civility, good will, benevolence, community, making and keeping friends**

Dragonfly, Matus, (and now) Ellen, and Bob Mac: ALL FOUR OF YOU have now gone over to the solo passion approach of making this a PARP Thread ('personal attacks and resentments and putdowns'): turning it into 'who started it', whose posts were best, let's search thru the archives, expressing personal angers and put downs in public.

One of the virtues of OL in the past over Linz's website had been greater friendliness and civility. And community building. But that is starting to be lost (in my view that always happens in unmoderated sites as the lowest common denominator and the angriest militant drives out the rest).

I know it's tempting to give in to the "Ill just take one more shot", "I'll show that guy", I'll get the devastating last word, I'll humiliate the SOB" approach. But, just as it doesn't work in private life, making a public display of this doesn't work either.

(Oh, and broadening the attack to include -me- or suggesting "well, you were uncivil too before in August of 2006", or "I can't accept a rational point if it's too 'arrogant' or condescending" is equally irrational and Lindsay-esque).

My best tip: Don't post in instant response; cool down; edit your posts and decide which things simply don't require an answer or getting down in the name-calling, put down gutter with your despised? adversary. Remember what people have told all of us for years: Harsh words can sometimes not be taken back.

....

Objectivist Rage, anyone?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I agree with you.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Hey! I didn't mke the list! Damn!

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Guys: Can't we all just get along.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I fail to understand why [DF is] so "edgy" and personal in [his] vindictive terminolgy.

Are you serious? Have you followed the course of this thread? (I mean, have you read the details of the exchange? If so, I would think you could see that Matus hasn't slowed down long enough to try to get correctly what DF has argued, while he's meanwhile taken an escalatingly intense, and increasingly -- up till his last, short reply -- long-winded, accusatory stance. Enough, I'd say, to unsettle any fly's wings.)

Ellen

___

I disagree of course, in fact I am calling attention to what Dragonfly is actually saying, and he makes no effort to counter those points. I have not 'slowed down' ? I have made every reasonable effort to understand what DF is arguing, and it is clear he is insisting insisting that Rand had hidden messages supporting a murderous callousness, his only evidence for this is one isolated passage taken outside of the context of the scene it was presented in, and another quote from a different book spoken by a protagonist and summarizing the the evil essence of collectivism. He has not even disagreed with this, and replies only with vague attempts at obfuscations on these points. I've asked numerous critical point questions to get him to identify exactly the basis for his points and he continually ignores them and again offers only red herrings and obfuscations.

I think it's pretty clear that DF's 'interpretation' was flawed at the outset, and now he is trying to hide / backtrack to not admit that.

Matus,

I don't think you're correctly understanding what Dragonfly is saying; and I think you have answered in accelerating style, increasingly missing his point. Since the issue of the particular scene -- and related aspects of Rand's writing -- is of interest to me, I'll try to get a chance to write about the sequence of the discussion in some detail later tonight or tomorrow. (I don't know if I'll have the time, with things to do re Christmas coming next week.)

Ellen

PS to Phil: Frankly, you might as well spare your breath where I'm concerned (I know you were addressing others along with me; I'm speaking just for myself). I'll enter debates as and when I see cause to do so, and call the shots as I see them. Sometimes I goof, but that's my lookout.

PPS to Chris: No, we can't "all just get along."

___

[Laure]

Well, some of us can get along, but not all of us.

We are never going to change how anyone feels about the scene with Dagny and the guard. I've given my interpretation, and told how I feel, and it's pointless to argue about it.

[Selene]

Well, some of us can get along, but not all of us.

We are never going to change how anyone feels about the scene with Dagny and the guard. I've given my interpretation, and told how I feel, and it's pointless to argue about it.

Yep. I tried being sarcastic and that didn't work and frankly I don't have any feeling about the scene at all except that it read quite well to me.

Adam

[Matus1976]

**related issues: civility, good will, benevolence, community, making and keeping friends**

Dragonfly, Matus, (and now) Ellen, and Bob Mac: ALL FOUR OF YOU have now gone over to the solo passion approach of making this a PARP Thread ('personal attacks and resentments and putdowns'): turning it into 'who started it', whose posts were best, let's search thru the archives, expressing personal angers and put downs in public.

I'm not quite understanding Why I (and Ellen) are considered equally here as Bob and Dragonfly. Both of the latter have quickly descended into direct personal attacks and obviously resentments, especially Mr Mac trolling my profile to come up with silly insults (I'm taking too long to design and build a motorcycle, are you serious, that's an insult! ha!) I have only ever discussed the ideas Dragonfly presented (the perverse nature of this quote according to him) and the legitimacy of said criticism, and the logical implications of his allegations (that Rand is an advocate of callous murder) Ellen has not to my knowledge resorted to any petty insults or name calling such as Mr. Mac and Dragonfly have, even though she disagrees strongly with me.

Dragonfly said:

It is equally obvious that you are narrow minded and retarded.

Dragonfly has explicitly stated that he was not making a technical criticism and that "[Rand] is conveying a philosophical and moral message in this passage and she couldn't have been more explicit" What is the message she was conveying according to him? Essentially that it is ok to kill worthless people.

Do I really need to even open Bob Mac's posts to quote the ridiculous attempts at insults he spews?

With that, is it fair to lump my points in with the direct, intentional, and absolute personal insults spewed by Dragonfly and Bob Mac? I don't think so, but hey, I suppose I am biased.

[Dragonfly]

Matus is lying again. It was he who started with personal attacks and insults. I merely returned the compliment. Now he's trying to hide behind the technicality that calling my argument narrow-minded and retarded is not an insult. Of course it is, as an argument cannot be "narrow-minded" or "retarded", an argument has no "mind". These adjectives refer to the person behind the argument. So he should stop whining now.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re Matus' question to Phil: Irrespective of who's been nasty or nice ("Santa Claus is comin' to town"; he, or his UPS surrogate, is scheduled to deliver some presents on our doorstep tomorrow), I think that as soon as there's any sign of animosity in a conversation, Phil just wants an end to hostilities, never mind if substance is emerging from the turmoil. But I've found in my years in listland that so often the disputes which have ended up being the most productive have been exactly those in which the participants became inflamed. When a subject is of emotional importance to people, and there are strong differences of opinions, animosities are almost sure to arise. Along with the yelling, however, the energy aroused can also produce spirited thinking. Thus my belief is that as long as a list dispute doesn't degenerate into simply a mud-slinging fest, usually it's better to let the battle run its course.

Getting back to the battle...

Matus, maybe it would expedite matters if you would say, briefly: What do you think is the point of the scene in which Dagny kills the guard? Why do you think the scene is in the book?

Ellen

___

[bmacwilliam]

With people I don't like, I can be a big jerk. Admittedly, a real SOB.

The difference is I understand that, I admit it.

Matus, on the other hand, will admit nothing. Regardless of how often he's caught in lies, insults or whatever, he'll never back down. This is why he attracts scorn. The bottom line is that the scorn is highly deserved.

Notice he picked my weakest criticism - the motorcycle - to mock.

Notice also

Matus:

"I'm not quite understanding Why I (and Ellen) are considered equally here as Bob and Dragonfly"

"I have only ever discussed the ideas Dragonfly presented "

"With that, is it fair to lump my points in with the direct, intentional, and absolute personal insults spewed by Dragonfly and Bob Mac?"

He's a deceptive, lying sack of crap. I can often smell these guys a long way off and for the same reason, as you might recall, I was less than civil with Victor. There's a reason for it. They are Losers with a capital 'L'.

Bob

[Matus1976]

Matus is lying again. It was he who started with personal attacks and insults. I merely returned the compliment. Now he's trying to hide behind the technicality that calling my argument narrow-minded and retarded is not an insult.

There is no lie about it Dragonfly, on the contrary I freely admitted that i called your INTERPRETATION narrow minded and retarded, here was my exact response to you.

-I don't have to telepathically divine what Rand meant. She was crystal clear in what she meant:

-Calmly and impersonally she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight into the heart of a man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

-What is obvious (and what is also made very clear in the whole preceding dialogue) is that by not being able to choose the man forfeited his right to live, he is less than an animal,

-What is "obvious"? Your "obvious" interpretation is narrow minded and retarded.

To which you responded

It is equally obvious that you are narrow minded and retarded.

And I said :

I have now presented sufficient evidence demonstrating why you interpretation is neither 'obvious' thoughtfull, nor intelligent. Thus it is narrow minded and retarded. Note I was also attacking your INTERPRETATION and not YOU, yet you, demonstrating further your childishness, attacked ME as narrow minded and retarded, without, of course, backing this up with any evidence, and acting as though merely stating it automatically makes it true. If this is the concept of proof and reasoned argument you embrace, I see no point in further discussions with you.

Of course it is, as an argument cannot be "narrow-minded" or "retarded", an argument has no "mind". These adjectives refer to the person behind the argument. So he should stop whining now.

I have all ready explained to you that indeed YOU - WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION AND THIS INTERPRETATION- were Narrow Minded, which is obvious. You responded, rather rediculously, and clearly not thinking this out thoroughly that I could call your argument 'bad' or 'nonsense' but that wouldn’t necessarily mean you as the arguer are bad or nonsensical. Ridiculous, all of these apply in the same way, you, within the context of this argument and this discussion, are making no sense. I surely make perfect sense when you speak to your postman or call your cell phone representative.

This was your exact statement

I don't fall for that legalistic trick. An argument can be bad, wrong, or nonsense, but if you say that it is "narrow-minded" and

"retarded", you're using words that refer to the person and not to the argument. This is a dishonest tactic. You see, two can play that game.

and my response

Your argument is bad, wrong, nonsensical, and narrow minded, why could you also not interpret that to mean you are bad, wrong, or nonsensical? Why do those only pertain to 'arguments' while 'narrow minded' (which explicitly identifies a perspective in which something is judged) pertains to you, and not only the argument. Please list what quality judgments pertain only to the argument and which pertain to argument and arguer, and which pertain only to arguer, so I might be able to have a meaningful discussion without you devolving into immature name calling (yes, that is you, immature, not your argument) You merely interpret my comment of your argument into one that pertains to you in general, but I should hope you realize by now how limited your abilities of interpretation are.

Your ARGUMENT was narrow minded, I don't know anything about you, except for this argument, so YOU, in relation only to the context of this discussion, are narrow minded (I know you have problems with keeping context) but unlike you, I do not make it a habit of passing sweeping judgments over the entirety of one's life and mind, only that which I have direct experience with. So this is not saying that YOU as a WHOLE are narrow minded. Yet you insist that I, as a whole, am retarded and narrow minded, when you CAN NOT CITE ANY EVIDENCE that suggests I am either of those EVEN WITHIN the narrow context of this discussion.

I think most people have made the intellectual leap between distinguishing assessments of their specific arguments and general full sweeping character assessments. It seems you still need to make that leap. Calling your interpretation narrow minded and retarded is absolutely and explicitly NOT the same thing as calling you, as a whole general sweeping character assessment, narrow minded or retarded. That is why I said, explicitly, yet again, YOUR INTERPRETATION, that you are unable to distinguish the difference speaks only of your maturity level in debating (or at least in this discussion)

[Matus1976]

Getting back to the battle...

Matus, maybe it would expedite matters if you would say, briefly: What do you think is the point of the scene in which Dagny kills the guard? Why do you think the scene is in the book?

Ellen

___

Hi Ellen, I presented my assessment in post 63 (emphasis added)

(to Dragonfly) Again, you ignore the context of the scene, Dagny did not walk up to a random person and insist on going through a door he happened to stand in front of, then killed him for not moving aside and not answering her inquiry fast enough. If she did, and killed the man, your 'obvious' 'interprtation' would be more reasonable. The man guarded a door which held Dagny's lover who was being tortured to death. When the question is one of life and death, and where human rights are being violated, attempting to deny the responsibility of concioussness is not a free waiver to absolve you of the consequences of your actions. The people in the Taggart Tunnel did not deserve to die because they happened to have thought one thing or said another, Rand was not advocating that we go out and bomb and crush socialists in train tunnels, that interpretation is as 'obvious' and moronic as yours is here, the scene was to illustrate, just as in this scene, that to evade the responsibility of conscioussness does not free you from suffering the logical consequences from that evasion.

[Dragonfly]

Repeating a bad argument doesn't make it better. An argument can be bad or wrong, but it cannot be "retarded", that is an insulting personal qualifyer, implying that the person is mentally deficient. So you started hurling insults. Don't blame the other person for your own faults.

[Laure]

... to evade the responsibility of conscioussness does not free you from suffering the logical consequences from that evasion.

Or as I said much less formally, "Look, he won't even think, literally, to save his life."

We have explained our interpretation of the scene, and I think we "get it". Others are never going to "get it", and I think it's because they have more empathy for the guard than we do. I understand your frustration, Matus1976. We could also point out that if Rand meant to convey that it was OK to kill people who can't make up their minds, she could have made that point better in Akston's Diner. Dagny's sitting there eating a burger. A woman next to her at the counter: "Gosh, vanilla or chocolate? I just can't decide!" Dagny: *blam*