sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I gather from skimming your post that you're bent because you think I haven't defined "freedom". But when I said I accept the Objectivist definition of individual rights and when I said "freedom" it was meant as a shorthand for that, you objected that I didn't write you a little student essay on what my own interpretation of individual rights was.I ignored your request because it is stupid. This is an Objectivist forum. I don't need to reiterate basic Objectivism every time I make a point.You do if you demonstrate your ignorance of Objectivism. You can't possibly force someone to be free from coercion, it's a contradiction. The fact that you accused matus of forcing freedom on others, a self-refuting argument, demonstrates you don't have nearly as a coherent understanding of Objectivism as you think you do.I accused him of *wanting* to do that you knucklehead.You rationalists can draw conclusions like crazy, but it's only because you are crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Did anyone else notice how badly Ron Paul did last night?Do any of the Ron Paul supporters on OL have any comment on the New Republic report? The article that has all these anti-black and anti-semitic quotes from the Ron Paul Report.By the way, where did you hear about this report?Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Johnny,Shayne has Objectivism down cold. He lacks, er... social skills, but it is incorrect to say he doesn't understand Objectivism. Shayne knows just as much about Objectivism as most any Objectivist I know (if not more). He is one of the few who actually reads ALL the literature and remembers what he read.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I gather from skimming your post that you're bent because you think I haven't defined "freedom". But when I said I accept the Objectivist definition of individual rights and when I said "freedom" it was meant as a shorthand for that, you objected that I didn't write you a little student essay on what my own interpretation of individual rights was.I ignored your request because it is stupid. This is an Objectivist forum. I don't need to reiterate basic Objectivism every time I make a point.You do if you demonstrate your ignorance of Objectivism. You can't possibly force someone to be free from coercion, it's a contradiction. The fact that you accused matus of forcing freedom on others, a self-refuting argument, demonstrates you don't have nearly as a coherent understanding of Objectivism as you think you do.I accused him of *wanting* to do that you knucklehead.You rationalists can draw conclusions like crazy, but it's only because you are crazy.That doesn't escape the contradiction. You accuse him of wanting to take a contradictory action of forcing freedom. But it's impossible to want to force someone to not be coerced. You are still not making any sense. I don't believe matus ever made the pronouncement he wanted to force freedom on someone but rather that is something you are attributing to him. Since that is an impossibility and you make the accusation, the onus is on you to explain what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matus1976 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 You do if you demonstrate your ignorance of Objectivism. You can't possibly force someone to be free from coercion, it's a contradiction. The fact that you accused matus of forcing freedom on others, a self-refuting argument, demonstrates you don't have nearly as a coherent understanding of Objectivism as you think you do.I accused him of *wanting* to do that you knucklehead.You rationalists can draw conclusions like crazy, but it's only because you are crazy.That still makes no sense you knucklehead - that's the point. How can you accuse me of wanting to force people to be free when you now profess such a thing makes no sense? The reason is either you hold an incorrect definition of freedom, or I do. You presented no evidence suggesting what my definition of freedom was, and I have been the one arguing from the very start that you can't force people to be free, that such a thing is contradictory, and yet even after that you still insisted that forcing others to be free is what I 'want' to do. I have explicitly stated my definition of freedom from the very start, a definition which is completely incompatible with your charge, and you have explicitly ducked stating your definition throughout this entire thread. The only thing that makes any sense here is that you hold a bad definition of freedom in your mind early on and to you it made sense to accuse someone of 'forcing others to be free' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matus1976 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Johnny,Shayne has Objectivism down cold. He lacks, er... social skills,Apparently. but it is incorrect to say he doesn't understand Objectivism. Shayne knows just as much about Objectivism as most any Objectivist I know (if not more). He is one of the few who actually reads ALL the literature and remembers what he read.MichaelThen he accidentally turned too many pages and skipped over every meaningful discussion of freedom in Objectivist literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matus1976 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 To answer your question [finally], no, I would not accuse you of denying the law of identiy. To which you would have no doubt stated something along the line <snip>Are you going to stop being presumptuous and stop rambling on, or are you going to answer my questions exactly as I put them to you? Because at this point I am not interested in any sort of exchange except you answering my questions. Or you if want to post your ramblings in a separate post that I can ignore, that is fine too. But in your replies to me, I just want your answers. Those are my terms, take them or leave them.Whoa! after ONE whole post I [FINALLY] Responded!! I have asked you to define freedom probably over a dozen times, to show your logical argument behind claiming I want to 'force others to be free' I had to ask 3 or 4 times for you to acknowledge that the US is one of the freest nations on the planet, and asked you many other times whether you preferred north korea or the US, etc. Oh but I skip one question and I'm skewered! yeah right. Your 'terms' whatever, I'll answer any question you want as long as you answer mine, but you can go ahead and go first, since I'm such a gentleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 That doesn't escape the contradiction. You accuse him of wanting to take a contradictory action of forcing freedom. But it's impossible to want to force someone to not be coerced. You are still not making any sense.No, that he wants something that makes no sense was my point.I don't understand why you think people can't want things that make no sense. Maybe you could try to explain this, and do a better and more concise job that Matus has done so far.I don't believe matus ever made the pronouncement he wanted to force freedom on someone but rather that is something you are attributing to him. Since that is an impossibility and you make the accusation, the onus is on you to explain what you mean.To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people. And then he went on a big rationalistic escapade about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Johnny,Shayne has Objectivism down cold. He lacks, er... social skills, but it is incorrect to say he doesn't understand Objectivism. Shayne knows just as much about Objectivism as most any Objectivist I know (if not more). He is one of the few who actually reads ALL the literature and remembers what he read.MichaelHe certainly hasn't demonstrated that in this thread. Attributing contradictory statements to someone who never made them.post 42 - ""I extend that courtesy" is a euphemism for forcing others to value what you value"Post 49 - "Since you evidently believe in forcing people to be free "post 67 - "Since you're the one who proposes to force people to be free I don't know why you are asking me."None of these statements make sense. He must first demonstrate how matus wants to force others to be free. Matus has never said this nor advocated it, nor could he advocate it even if he wanted to. The onus is on him to demonstrate this is even a logical statement to attribute it as a desire that matus possesses. Matus has stated he wants to force people who try to stop others from being free to stop oppressing them. This cannot in anyway be construed to mean he wants to force other people to value what he values, but rather he wants to force them to comply with his logical extension of his values, to respect freedom. He wants to kill or eliminate the people who oppose his values, namely those who oppose the value of freedom. By stopping tyrants like Saddam Hussein, is one forcing freedom upon others, something that is impossible, or are they helping others achieve freedom, namely freedom from a tyrant's brutal oppression over them? When matus and I assume even the supposed expert of Objectivism Shayne advocates that a criminal be locked up behind bars for robbing an innocent man, is matus and Shayne forcing freedom upon the victim? Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Then he accidentally turned too many pages and skipped over every meaningful discussion of freedom in Objectivist literature.This is the only alternative you can come up with for what has happened so far? That I don't understand Objectivism/freedom? Truly and honestly? You are certain of this? Now's not the time for hyperbole, answer carefully and precisely: Are you certain that my understanding of Objectivism/freedom/individual rights is as weak/wrong-headed as you have been claiming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?Why did you ignore my questions to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) That doesn't escape the contradiction. You accuse him of wanting to take a contradictory action of forcing freedom. But it's impossible to want to force someone to not be coerced. You are still not making any sense.No, that he wants something that makes no sense was my point.I don't understand why you think people can't want things that make no sense. Because it is impossible to make any concretizations of a contradictory desire. You can't possibly want to do something that is illogical. You can't want to for example sacrifice your own happiness because it makes you happier. Within the desire itself is a self-refuting statement that makes it incoherent. One can say this but they can't actually mean it as it is an invalid statement. You accuse matus of wanting to force freedom upon others, you didn't say that's what he said, you merely make the accusation that's what he wanted. You shift the accusation from "that's what matus wants" to "that's what matus said". Those are different accusations. And the latter accusation is simply untrue, he never said or implied it. Edited January 10, 2008 by Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?Why did you ignore my questions to you?What question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?Why did you ignore my questions to you?What question?The implicit question in "I don't understand why you think people can't want things that make no sense. Maybe you could try to explain this, and do a better and more concise job that Matus has done so far." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?Why did you ignore my questions to you?What question?The implicit question in "I don't understand why you think people can't want things that make no sense. Maybe you could try to explain this, and do a better and more concise job that Matus has done so far."I explained in post 113.But I'll reiterate. You can't desire something that violates the law of non-contradictory identity. Thus it is not a desire, but an incoherent, meaningless statement. Edited January 10, 2008 by Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 You can't possibly want to do something that is illogical.Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) You can't possibly want to do something that is illogical.Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees.Why do you disagree? You can certainly make a meaningless statement you desire something illogical, but it doesn't make it a valid statement, but rather a string of words without any cohesive meaning. It may be grammatically correct, as in it follows the correct structure of a sentence, but it has no meaning. So it's not a desire, but a meaningless statement. You can desire food, you can desire freedom, but you can't desire something illogical. I'm surprised you find that incredible? I thought MSK said you were an expert on Objectivism? Edited January 10, 2008 by Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction?The context of the conversation. He said "I extend that courtesy" in answer to me saying our government (and remember that the nature of government is its use of force to accomplish ends) should not be inserting itself in the middle of foreign affairs. And keep in mind, we send over guns and tanks, not the judicial system. There's no attempt to uphold individual rights there, there's just throwing our weight around. (Good thing the metaphor policeman left the forum...)Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?This is a confused question. I of course don't have a problem with holding a tyrant accountable for his actions against the American people--assuming those Americans are within our borders. I have a problem with using American lives/money to *pretend* to defend the world. Again, we send guns and tanks, not our judicial system.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 You can't possibly want to do something that is illogical.Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees.Why do you disagree? You can certainly make a meaningless statement you desire something illogical, but it doesn't make it a valid statement, but rather a string of words without any cohesive meaning. It may be grammatically correct, as in it follows the correct structure of a sentence, but it has no meaning. So it's not a desire, but a meaningless statement. You can desire food, you can desire freedom, but you can't desire something illogical. I'm surprised you find that incredible? I thought MSK said you were an expert on Objectivism?I don't mean this as insulting, but how old are you?Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction?The context of the conversation. He said "I extend that courtesy" in answer to me saying our government (and remember that the nature of government is its use of force to accomplish ends) should not be inserting itself in the middle of foreign affairs.I see. Even if foreign affairs can lead to the destruction of our own interests? What kind of principle does that predicate from? So you're saying even if foreign nations taking actions that lead to the destruction of our own rational long term self-interests, we would be wrong to oppose them because it means one is forcing freedom upon others? Huh?Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?This is a confused question. I of course don't have a problem with holding a tyrant accountable for his actions against the American people--assuming those Americans are within our borders. I have a problem with using American lives/money to *pretend* to defend the world. Again, we send guns and tanks, not our judicial system.ShayneI'm not sure I understand the comment we send guns and tanks and not our judicial system? I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of that, but putting that aside for now, for one Saddam Hussein's actions were against the interests of the American people, so I disagree with your premise he made no actions against us or our interests, thus we would be justified to use our resources against a long term threat to our own interests. Using American resources to combat foreign threats to our interests are in service to our values, not a violation of them. You may disagree Saddam Hussein was taking actions against our interests, but that doesn't mean you are correct in thinking that. Edited January 10, 2008 by Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 You can't possibly want to do something that is illogical.Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees.Why do you disagree? You can certainly make a meaningless statement you desire something illogical, but it doesn't make it a valid statement, but rather a string of words without any cohesive meaning. It may be grammatically correct, as in it follows the correct structure of a sentence, but it has no meaning. So it's not a desire, but a meaningless statement. You can desire food, you can desire freedom, but you can't desire something illogical. I'm surprised you find that incredible? I thought MSK said you were an expert on Objectivism?I don't mean this as insulting, but how old are you?ShayneWhat difference does that make? And now you don't mean to be insulting but a few posts prior you call me a knucklehead? Now you're an outright liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I don't mean this as insulting, but how old are you?ShayneArgument to the man or implicit argument from authority.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 What difference does that make?I'm just trying to understand your context.And now you don't mean to be insulting but a few posts prior you call me a knucklehead?I didn't mean to be insulting by my question, but I meant the other insult. Amazing that it didn't occur to you that I couldn't mean both. Youth can't account for that oversight, maybe you're just plain stupid.Now you're an outright liarAssuming you are young as I'm guessing, the question is: Will your errors cause you to think deeply, or will you just carry on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I don't mean this as insulting, but how old are you?ShayneArgument to the man or implicit argument from authority.--BrantNope. I wasn't making an argument. I was waiting to find out his experience level before making one. Someone of your age ought to know when he knows and when he doesn't. That you haven't learned it before now means you'll never learn. 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