Dagny and the Guard

[Matus1976]

Let me be explicitly clear here on what I am finding Narrow Minded and Retarded, or rather what particular thing I think Dragonfly is being those about:

Baal said: The guard cannot make up his mind so Dagny shoots him for NOT MAKING UP HIS MIND!!!!!

Dragonfly: This is indeed the most perverse passage in AS

Phil Coates said: Nowhere on that page does it suggest that she shot him BECAUSE of that

Dragonfly responded: Nonsense. Of course she shot him exactly for that reason, that is the whole meaning of the scene!

Here is he attempting to claim what the objective and absolute purpose of this scene was, he goes on to say

Dragonfly: that meaning is crystal clear, in fact she's shouting it at us: someone who cannot decide has forfeited his right to live and it is not immoral to kill him. That is the message she conveys

Thus he is stating that Rand is saying someone who 'cannot decide' has forfeited his right to life. Cannot decide what?

Dragonfly adds: It was meant as a philosophical lesson, as any intelligent reader immediately will understand.

What is 'any intelligent reader' immediately to understand?

He says to me: It is the moral message that Rand here explicitly makes that I find revolting (and that message is not that you may have to kill people in an emergency situation, I'm really amazed that people think that that is the point)

So far though, he has only identified this moral message as someone has foreited his right to life if he 'cannot decide'

Again he emphasizes this point, focusing on the lack of being able to choose but not explicitly identifying this allegedly obvious to anyone intelligent moral message

Dragonfly: - 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, he is an Untermensch. That animals don't have the rights that humans have does not mean that you can just kill any animal that you encounter in the street, so that comparison is also irrelevant.

Ellen elaborates on her disagreement with Dragonfly interpretation: - I don't agree with your reading of Rand's point. She isn't saying that the guard's desire "to exist without the responsibility of consciousness" is the reason why Dagny shot him. It's the reason why Dagny felt no compunction in shooting him. The reason why she shot him is because he was blocking her way. I don't take Rand to be saying that simply "by not being able to choose" "the man forfeited his right to live."

Dragonfly says: - I use it in the meaning that I think the idea that is conveyed is wicked and corrupt.

I explicitly identify the only logical 'moral message' Dragonfly seems to be implying is present: (emphasis added)

This is because your interpretation of the scene, that is, elevating this one particular sentance to the key essence of the whole scene, leads you to think Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone for hesistating to make a difficult decision, is not reasonable. As I asked you all ready, are you seriously asserting that Rand would be OK with someone going around and asking someone an important philosophical question and then killing them because they delayed in answering? You are ignoring the context of the scene, like saying that Cheryl Taggarts broken shoe was the reason she killed herself.

He finally explicitly identifies his moral message he feels is obvious in post 65

As I wrote earlier: I wouldn't have any problem if Dagny had killed a dozen guards in a shoot-out to rescue Galt if that had been unavoidable (as might have happened in a real situation); that would have been a war-like situation, it's them or us. But in the book the rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch. The excuse of rescuing Galt is very thin, as she takes all the time to babble with the guard, who was obviously so confused and incompetent that he could very easily have been overpowered. But no, such Untermenschen should be exterminated. As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it.

According then to Dragonfly, Rand's ultimate purpose of this scene was to present that she thought it was OK to kill people who you didnt think deserved to live, in this case, because they couldnt 'decide' fast enough. His additionally evidence for this is that in an entirely different book, a charachter in that book said something indicating masses are fuel to be burned and to be ground underfoot.

Dragonfly, as I have argued throughout most of this, is and has been arguing that Rand is an implicit exponenent OF CALLOUS MURDER. That only HE, as brilliant conspiracy theorist discoverer was clever enough to figure this out. As evidence, he presents only two disjointed quotes, in AS he removes the context of the scene (rescuing the love of ones life and killing someone who didnt care to live in the process) and in WTL he takes a sacrastic deragotry assessment of the essence of collectivism as suggests THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT RAND THOUGHT!

Dragonfly is a clairvoyant conspiracy theorist and is calling Rand an advocate of callous murder. I think his position is pretty clear. Equally clear is how absurd and narrow minded this interpretation is, and how RETARDED the claim that Rand, who spent her whole life idealogically fighting murderous collectivism, who fled a nation WHICH DID IN FACT use up the worthless masses and slaughtered millions, Was in fact an ardent supporter of intentional and callous murder.

[Selene]

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.

Let me make another attempt. If you are identifying a specific behavior of the other person and stating that it is a "fault", would it therefore be wiser to fefuse to respond with the same fault?

If you were trying to be drippingly sarcastic, that I would appreciate, but I did not get that impression.

Adam

[Matus1976]

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.

In the context of this discussion, you are certainly being retarded, but that is all I can speak of. Saying your argument or your interpretation is retarded is no different. I have no idea if you are retarded when you go the the grocery store or feed your dog, I suspect you are not, so you are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact, Dragonfly, that I dont think you are retarded. Your ideas presented here where you call Rand and advocate of murderous collectivism which only you were brilliantly clever enough to discover are rediculous, in doing whatever you did to come up with them, you were certainly being retarded. However, I suspect now that you are merely trying to promulgate a particular idealogical position, that Rand is a fascist advocate of mass murder, and you don't particular care about any arguments trying to understand what a scene means, you are only interested in painting her, quite rediculously, as an advocate of wholesale slaughter.

[Dragonfly]

In the context of this discussion, you are certainly being retarded

I rest my case.

[Matus1976]

... 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*

lol, indeed. Dragonfly is rediculously arguing that the whole reason Galt was kidnapped, held hostage, and tortured, was so Rand could sneak in this idea that it is Ok to kill someone because they 'can't decide' Of course, asking one's self what exactly the guard couldnt decide in that scene reveals much more of the essence that Rand was trying to convey.

[Matus1976]

In the context of this discussion, you are certainly being retarded

I rest my case.

Why don't you stop being a panzy and start defending your ideas and position, instead of obsessing over whether I was calling YOU or YOUR ARGUMENT retarded. Simple, you won't, because you just want to paint Rand as an advocate of mass murder, and now that your rediculous arguments have been torn apart by everyone in this thread, you instead want to throw a tantrum about possibly being called retarded, more obfuscation.

Are you 'resting your case' on whether or not I think you are retarded, or on whether or not Rand is an advocate of mass murder? Either way, I think the judge would have just thrown the case out.

[Selene]

In the context of this discussion, you are certainly being retarded

I rest my case.

Why don't you stop being a panzy and start defending your ideas and position, instead of obsessing over whether I was calling YOU or YOUR ARGUMENT retarded. Simple, you won't, because you just want to paint Rand as an advocate of mass murder, and now that your rediculous arguments have been torn apart by everyone in this thread, you instead want to throw a tantrum about possibly being called retarded, more obfuscation.

Are you 'resting your case' on whether or not I think you are retarded, or on whether or not Rand is an advocate of mass murder? Either way, I think the judge would have just thrown the case out.

And been sustained on appeal with cost and disbursements charged to the D man.

[Dragonfly]

Let me make another attempt. If you are identifying a specific behavior of the other person and stating that it is a "fault", would it therefore be wiser to fefuse to respond with the same fault?

My philosophy is "tit for tat", not "the other cheek". If someone insults me, I pay the compliment back. Recently I had a discussion with Valliant on the Dawkins forum, not exactly someone I'd call my friend (Valliant I mean). But he was polite and I was polite, so we could disagree in a polite discussion without any insults.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Dragonfly

[Dragonfly]

Why don't you stop being a panzy

I rest my case.

[bmacwilliam]

Why don't you stop being a panzy

I rest my case.

Cool, we can add 'tough guy' to the long list of imaginary traits he fancies himself to have.

Bob

[Selene]

Let me make another attempt. If you are identifying a specific behavior of the other person and stating that it is a "fault", would it therefore be wiser to fefuse to respond with the same fault?

My philosophy is "tit for tat", not "the other cheek". If someone insults me, I pay the compliment back. Recently I had a discussion with Valliant on the Dawkins forum, not exactly someone I'd call my friend (Valliant I mean). But he was polite and I was polite, so we could disagree in a polite discussion without any insults.

An acceptable position, however I know as a rhetorician that you gain fewer people to your ideas with that approach. Since I read Atlas at about 13, I have used most of its solid principles to advance individual freedom and convert anyone who gets in a communication to at least reading the book and discussing the ideas it presents. So that makes about almost 45 years of converting folks to freedom, capitalism and limited government.

Out of curiosity, how old are you and what do you choose to do professionally?

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

An acceptable position, however I know as a rhetorician that you gain fewer people to your ideas with that approach. Since I read Atlas at about 13, I have used most of its solid principles to advance individual freedom and convert anyone who gets in a

Convert????? Are you on a religious crusade.

Persuade or convince (maybe) but convert????

Sheesh!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

*the use and abuse of your emotional reactions*

> 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.

Ellen, don't confuse discussions to which words like 'spirited' (you used later in your post), 'passionate', 'emotional' might apply with those which are focused on personal attack, rage, smashing the other guy, and insults.

In the latter case, far from it being “often”, it's hard for me to recall seeing such a discussion from which significant new substance or insights have emerged on these oist boards. That's quite different from being passionate, heated, angry, emotionally committed, emphatic about a topic. All of which are appropriate. Being in touch with your emotions.

One should bear in mind that substantive insights emerging from the thread before it degenerated don't count. Reason and emotion don't have to be at war, but when a major part of your focus is on 'getting' someone or winning at all costs, your IQ, your insights, your wisdom, and your rationality drop.

[Dragonfly]

An acceptable position, however I know as a rhetorician that you gain fewer people to your ideas with that approach.

Perhaps, but I'm not really interested in converting people to my ideas. I'm satisfied if I can reach a few other people and can learn something from them in discussions.

Out of curiosity, how old are you and what do you choose to do professionally?

I'm almost exactly your age and I've been a theoretical physicist, working for many years at a research institute (TNO) in The Netherlands. Nowadays I mostly translate books (textbooks and popular science books) from English, German, French and Swedish into Dutch. I hope to live long enough (and have earned enough) to continue in a few years my career as a painter and as a classical pianist.

[Selene]

An acceptable position, however I know as a rhetorician that you gain fewer people to your ideas with that approach. Since I read Atlas at about 13, I have used most of its solid principles to advance individual freedom and convert anyone who gets in a

Convert????? Are you on a religious crusade.

Persuade or convince (maybe) but convert????

Sheesh!

Ba'al Chatzaf

And I specifically chose that word to see if you would bite. Ever done any fly fishing? Convert-as the first definition in my dictionary states "to turn or move".

However, your gestalt chose to not ask what I meant, but to chose to interpret the third definition of convert.

I try to turn or move a person into a position to examine an original idea that Rand stated explicitly.

[Selene]

An acceptable position, however I know as a rhetorician that you gain fewer people to your ideas with that approach.

Perhaps, but I'm not really interested in converting people to my ideas. I'm satisfied if I can reach a few other people and can learn something from them in discussions.

Out of curiosity, how old are you and what do you choose to do professionally?

I'm almost exactly your age and I've been a theoretical physicist, working for many years at a research institute (TNO) in The Netherlands. Nowadays I mostly translate books (textbooks and popular science books) from English, German, French and Swedish into Dutch. I hope to live long enough (and have earned enough) to continue in a few years my career as a painter and as a classical pianist.

Excellent. Great field. Have you read the book "Chaos"? Cudos to your other career choices. My people come from Northern Italy, Berceto a small town outside of Milan and Parma. They came over here in 1905 or so.

[Dragonfly]

Have you read the book "Chaos"?

If you could mention the author...

[Selene]

Have you read the book "Chaos"?

If you could mention the author...

As I typed it was thinking that I can't remeber his name, but it was out and read by a few folks out at Gruman in the 1990's. It deals with " ... mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." [Wikopedia definition].

Sorry.

[Dragonfly]

As a student I've worked with some of the basics of chaos theory, non-linear differential equations, Lyapunov theory etc. Later I've as a hobby been exploring the field a bit by writing computer programs for simulating different non-linear systems. I no longer remember what articles or books I've read on the subject.

[BaalChatzaf]

Have you read the book "Chaos"?

If you could mention the author...

James Gleick, I believe That details can be found at www.amazon.com

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Now you mention it, I seem to remember that I've read the book by Gleick.

[Selene]

Now you mention it, I seem to remember that I've read the book by Gleick.

Bingo! That is it.

James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science, New York: Penguin, 1988. 368 pp.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dagny's sitting there [at Akston's Diner] eating a burger. A woman next to her at the counter: "Gosh, vanilla or chocolate? I just can't decide!" Dagny: *blam*

Laure,

LOLOLOL...

You got talent, girl. What a pleasant surprise.

And not only do you get it, you get those who don't get it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Dagny's sitting there [at Akston's Diner] eating a burger. A woman next to her at the counter: "Gosh, vanilla or chocolate? I just can't decide!" Dagny: *blam*

Laure,

LOLOLOL...

You got talent, girl. What a pleasant surprise.

And not only do you get it, you get those who don't get it.

Michael

LOL. Thanks for quoting Laure. I missed this because I stopped actually reading this thread except a few short posts. The rest I just skim or skip.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

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. [....]

In at least one subsequent post (I'm behind with reading the queue) Matus has used "retarded" as an obvious direct personal charge. However, a detail pertaining to idiom. These days I hear American kids describing arguments as "retarded" and meaning the argument not the person. Idiom does change with time, no stopping it, however much it might grate on the older generation. (I repeat, I'm aware that Matus then started calling you retarded; I'm just pointing out that he possibly didn't mean the term initially the way you took it.)

Ellen

___