An Open Letter to Objectivists on Ron Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you paid to anal rape monkeys?

Michael,

I have altered a post by Shayne where he cut loose with a "fuck you" to a new member and deleted the phrase. I request that you refrain from this kind of thing also.

I have learned your methodology of repeating the same fallacy or rhetorical category back at a person, but please keep it to a higher standard. I am not removing it because another poster made a quip about it and I do not want to micromaange grown adults.

I appreciate your attention to this.

Incidentally, no one is paid to post here. Kat and I pay for all to post here.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

I am unclear about your purpose in the line of thinking preceding this. Why is it relevant what who thought when about individual rights? Are you trying to let some people off the hook for violating them or what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

No, I am not trying to legitimize rights-violations. I am simply pointing out that "faith in individual rights" is as bad as faith in anything. My conviction in individual rights is based on solid evidence first and foremost.

[sjw]

I am unclear about your purpose in the line of thinking preceding this. Why is it relevant what who thought when about individual rights? Are you trying to let some people off the hook for violating them or what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

No, I am not trying to legitimize rights-violations. I am simply pointing out that "faith in individual rights" is as bad as faith in anything. My conviction in individual rights is based on solid evidence first and foremost.

No one here says that something should be taken on faith, so I still don't know what your point is.

If you are arguing that the burden is on the victim to make a case for the thief to stop stealing, then you're dead wrong. The burden is the other way. The fact that the thieves have run amok historically doesn't change this.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

Are you paid to anal rape monkeys?

Michael,

I have altered a post by Shayne where he cut loose with a "fuck you" to a new member and deleted the phrase. I request that you refrain from this kind of thing also.

I have learned your methodology of repeating the same fallacy or rhetorical category back at a person, but please keep it to a higher standard. I am not removing it because another poster made a quip about it and I do not want to micromaange grown adults.

I appreciate your attention to this.

No problem MSK

Incidentally, no one is paid to post here. Kat and I pay for all to post here.

Michael

Of course no one (sans Shayne apparently) would actually think any of us are *paid* to post here.

[Matus1976]

I have in fact been doing that all along.

Again: Didn't think so.

*yawn* And here we are on what, post 10, and yet you still refuse to make any sincere effort to make any arguments or points. I see no point in carrying on any further discussion with you if all you want to discuss is how we discuss things. If you are not now going to actually make some points about the question I've posted to you a half dozen times all ready then don't bother responding, because I won't be reading more yapping about how you think I am insincere and unable to interpret your arguments (which you rarely ever make) I want to know some good objections to the logical implications of supporting a lesser evil against a greater evil in the context of conscription, you have yet to make any, and instead only just barely realized that supporting conscription in some contexts was actually the direct logical implication of your own stated beliefs. If you don't think that is the case please state why. I think most people, when faced with someone who does not clearly understand thier point, would rather spend a couple posts clarifying their point instead of exhibiting solipsitic frustration at their readers lack of clairvoyant divination.

Really now, your lack of sincerity is all that is clear to me about you.

[sjw]

I have in fact been doing that all along.

Again: Didn't think so.

*yawn* And here we are on what, post 10, and yet you still refuse to make any sincere effort to make any arguments or points. I see no point in carrying on any further discussion with you if all you want to discuss is how we discuss things. If you are not now going to actually make some points about the question I've posted to you a half dozen times all ready then don't bother responding, because I won't be reading more yapping about how you think I am insincere and unable to interpret your arguments (which you rarely ever make) I want to know some good objections to the logical implications of supporting a lesser evil against a greater evil in the context of conscription, you have yet to make any, and instead only just barely realized that supporting conscription in some contexts was actually the direct logical implication of your own stated beliefs. If you don't think that is the case please state why. I think most people, when faced with someone who does not clearly understand thier point, would rather spend a couple posts clarifying their point instead of exhibiting solipsitic frustration at their readers lack of clairvoyant divination.

Really now, your lack of sincerity is all that is clear to me about you.

You just agreed with MSK not to repeat back the other person's rhetoric.

I won't be discussing anything other than how you discuss things until you start discussing things differently.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

Really now, your lack of sincerity is all that is clear to me about you.

You just agreed with MSK not to repeat back the other person's rhetoric.

Learn to read, MSK said

I have learned your methodology of repeating the same fallacy or rhetorical category back at a person, but please keep it to a higher standard.

(emphasis added) which is what I agreed to.

I won't be discussing anything other than how you discuss things until you start discussing things differently.

Shayne

Kind of a catch 22 don't ya think? You won't discuss things with me, until I start discussing things differently. No problem though, given your obsession with obfuscation, I doubt you have any good contributions to make anyway.

[studiodekadent]

If you are arguing that the burden is on the victim to make a case for the thief to stop stealing, then you're dead wrong. The burden is the other way. The fact that the thieves have run amok historically doesn't change this.

Agreed. But as I said, you are coming at this from a far more advanced, enlightened context than even the ancient Athenians.

Regardless, I am going to withdraw from this since I do not wish to be caught in the crossfire between yourself and Matus.

[sjw]

Agreed. But as I said, you are coming at this from a far more advanced, enlightened context than even the ancient Athenians.

Yes, you said that, but you still haven't stated the reason why you said that. Even if I could agree with your statement, I don't see it's relevance, but I can't agree because: I didn't know every human being that ever existed and I know for a fact that there are a great deal more thinkers than writers; individual rights isn't complicated or sophisticated, it's essentially a moral issue open to virtually anyone to understand, not a highly intellectual one. The complex intellectual issue is how to apply the principles of individual rights to the law.

It is true that corrupt people use intellectual tricks in an attempt to obscure the simplicity of individual rights and rationalize to themselves that it's not that simple, in order to almost believe they can keep doing wicked things without thinking of these things as wicked. Honest people watch these antics and are prone to be taken in by them, not comprehending what has gone wrong in the other person's mind, trying to help them see the light, but that's just as much a mistake as thinking that someone needs to be rationally convinced to open their eyes in order to see.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Your premise seems to be that morality cannot be learned. You either have it or you don't. I do not know if that is precise, but it comes across that way.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

Your premise seems to be that morality cannot be learned. You either have it or you don't. I do not know if that is precise, but it comes across that way.

Michael

I don't think I understand your (implicit) question.

A child can learn how to respect individual rights. It is not complicated. It does need to be learned, but it's a triviality to learn it. It's certainly a lot easier than trying to learn how to properly pay taxes, follow driving laws, business regulations, etc. etc. etc.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

A child can learn how to respect individual rights. It is not complicated.

[UncleJim]

A child can learn how to respect individual rights. It is not complicated.

They look like their waiting for Wal Mart to open.