Rand's gender hierarchy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Before we get to society, we have to deal with human nature. My recent posts have been within this context.

What values are needed by a mind in order for it to work properly? There are many, but the most important I have found in my life is an abstract value, but an objective value nonetheless: balance.

When my mental processes are out of balance, I tend to fall off into gross exaggeration. Whereas 2 of something will ring anyone's ding-a-ling, I tend to go for 10.

That doesn't mean only middle though. The value of balance can include sporadic excesses—after all, we are not robots—but it cannot include the binges I used to go on. When I binge, my mind is no longer very reliable. That goes for binging on drugs, alcohol or even reading, eating or letting a strong emotion take over my thoughts for days at a time.

I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value.

The only exception I currently allow for myself is super-focus when I write or study. Even then, I do not let it consume me days at a time like I used to do until I collapse from exhaustion. I have found that rest makes my mind work better. (Discipline is the cousin to balance.)

Due to my experiences in life, I know for a fact that mental balance is an objective value. It is always available and it always works the same way when I choose it. As icing on that cake, when I choose it, my mind chooses other stuff with far more wisdom than when I am binging.

These are facts. Not subjective opinions.

Michael

EDIT: btw - Values are facts. The laws of identity and causality apply to them.

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff,

Before we get to society, we have to deal with human nature. My recent posts have been within this context.

What values are needed by a mind in order for it to work properly? There are many, but the most important I have found in my life is an abstract value, but an objective value nonetheless: balance.

When my mental processes are out of balance, I tend to fall off into gross exaggeration. Whereas 2 of something will ring anyone's ding-a-ling, I tend to go for 10.

That doesn't mean only middle though. The value of balance can include sporadic excesses—after all, we are not robots—but it cannot include the binges I used to go on. When I binge, my mind is no longer very reliable. That goes for binging on drugs, alcohol or even reading, eating or letting a strong emotion take over my thoughts for days at a time.

I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value.

The only exception I currently allow for myself is super-focus when I write or study. Even then, I do not let it consume me days at a time like I used to do until I collapse from exhaustion. I have found that rest makes my mind work better. (Discipline is the cousin to balance.)

Due to my experiences in life, I know for a fact that mental balance is an objective value. It is always available and it always works the same way when I choose it. As icing on that cake, when I choose it, my mind chooses other stuff with far more wisdom than when I am binging.

These are facts. Not subjective opinions.

Michael

EDIT: btw - Values are facts. The laws of identity and causality apply to them.

I was just using the free market thing as an illustration of my point. Ignore it at your pleasure.

But to use your illustration--balance helps clear thinking. That is a fact. That you choose to make use of that fact is a value principle that derives from another value principle--the idea that clear thinking is a good thing.

It's derived from your judgments about the worth of clear thinking and the subsidiary worth of balance. But balance is not a value. The actual value principle involved is the desire to be in a state of balance.

My suspicion that we are simply differing on the terminology is getting stronger: I think it's simply a case that your definition of value is broader than mine, and possibly your definition of fact is broader than mine as well. Will have to think your postscript through (I agree about the laws of identity applying, but not so clear about the laws of causality. How does causation apply to something like honesty?)

[Brant Gaede]

The dogmatic asseveration of the subjectivist premise is the foundation for assaulting Objectivism. Politeness is camouflage.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How does causation apply to something like honesty?

Jeff,

That's easy. If you accept the human entity (thus human nature) as a cause generating force, you look at how honesty impacts it. Honesty by itself is too broad to be useful, though. Honesty to whom should be the starting point.

Honesty to yourself is a good thing in almost all contexts. When you lie to yourself, you sabotage your mind.

As to honesty to others, the traditional Objectivist view is that it depends on the evaluation you have of the intention of the other. One example often cited is that it is no virtue to tell a robber that there are jewels hidden in a safe, but it is a virtue to lie to him and say there are no jewels (if you can get away with it). The reasoning is that dealing with others honestly is a trade. If someone starts by using force or fraud against you, you have no moral obligation to hold to a contextless principle (i.e., there is no metaphysical value in blanking out context since you eliminate part of reality—i.e., a fact-based value cannot come with random chunks of reality chopped off and still be fact-based).

Peikoff took this reasoning to the outer limits when he claimed (or implied, I am not sure and don't feel like looking it up right now) that it was a virtue to lie to snoopers. One more weird instance of Objectivist hardening of the categories...

But the fundamental reasoning is sound (of the honesty in context principle, not the dishonesty to snoopers junk). Notice that honesty does not occur isolated from everything else in life. There are other values to be weighed and prioritized according to standards at the time honesty is practiced. That's just life.

For instance, would you lie to an honest person if that were the only way to save your daughter's life? I would without even blinking. I would clean up the mess later if that were possible since I value the honest person, too, but I would not have any moral meltdown about such a lie. On the contrary, I would feel pride at acting to save my daughter's life.

Because so many values are simultaneously involved in living, I do see how it can appear that a value is considered as subjective only. But that throws out all measurements and standards. The only way to navigate the complexity of living with any degree of effectiveness (and I mean effectiveness that applies to anyone who practices it) is to know the hows and whys and what fors of your values and prioritize them accordingly, i.e., to hold objective values.

There is another part of causality and human nature that governs honesty. If you lie too much to people, you will have no credibility with them when you tell the truth.

Michael

[Xray]

Freedom is either a value or it isn't. The question of whether it is an objective or subjective value is different.

I wanted to know if freedom was a value (to Xray). It seems I should have included "to Xray" in my queston.

So Xray, is freedom a value to you?

--Brant

pulling teeth

By adding the qualifier "to you", you have linked it to me as an individual entiy subjectively attributing value (or not) to something.

Even then I have to ask you for specifics before replying. For it is always "freedom from what"; "freedom to do what".

But in case your question is directed at freedom of mind (as I suppose it is), yes it is value to me. One of the the values I hold highest.

Bur not everyone values a free mind. Dictators loathe people with free minds, which means they don't consider the desire for feedom a value at all. The same is true for many ideolgists.

Many people prefer following a leader figure over their freedom; just think of the Jim Jones tragedy or the collective hysteria of the Third Reich. "Führer, wir folgen dir!" ("Leader, we follow you!") they cried, blindly following him into the abyss of total destruction. Freedom was (and is) willingly relinquished by many in order to let others guide them.

In short, freedom is a value to many, Brant, but by no means to all.

When you attentively read the recent interesting discussion between Michael and Jeffrey, again it becomes clear that values can't be anything but subjective.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Brant:

I walked my dog today, Xray. Nice, quiet neighborhood, but any "enemy" can drive into it with 3-4 minutes of effort, mug and leave. I had a .357 Colt Python revolver on my hip. Hollow point bullets. It's an American thing, refusing to be a victim.

Xray:

I walked my dog today too, Brant. Nice, quiet neighborhood, and although a "mugger" could have shown up too, I walked my dog without feeling I have to carry a weapon to feel safe.

Brant:

You might better grasp when I'm coming from if you substitute "Nazi" for "communist" in what I wrote.

You're probably safe in Germany for now. I live in Arizona. I mostly carried the gun yesterday to see if its weight on my hip was much of a bother. I might get a .380 auto. It's smaller and can be concealed and won't freak out the civilians who only want to be safe inside their own heads. I've been doing this dog walk for nearly three years and this was only the second time I wore the revolver. The previous time was the evening of July 3 a year ago. Crazy people come out at night the day before the fourth of July. I was menaced by a slow moving car, the only time that has happened.

If you were my wife I'd want you to have firearms' training, get a concealed carry permit and carry a .38 Special S&W revolver in a hip or stomach pack. A woman out for a walk in Georgia talking to her boyfriend on her phone was abducted and hasn't yet been found. The odds are about 99% that she was gang raped and murdered. If she's still alive it's only because they are still raping her.

The more states that permit concealed carries of handguns the less violent crime has been the result.

I don't feel I need a weapon to be safe. I think it. If I actually felt that I would literally sport a pump action 12 gauge shotgun in a sling over my shoulder. You write as if my attitude represents some kind of psychological deficiency, but I'm the guy everybody wants around when the shit hits the fan.

Even if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, and with shotgun training, I would feel extremely uncomfortable walking around with a loaded gun. I would be constantly afraid it might go off, and suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns, for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot.

Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I walked my dog today, Xray. Nice, quiet neighborhood, but any "enemy" can drive into it with 3-4 minutes of effort, mug and leave. I had a .357 Colt Python revolver on my hip. Hollow point bullets. It's an American hing, refusing to be a victim. Things are going to get pretty bad the next five years. All sorts of crazies are coming out of the woodwork. Do you know what happened in Germany in the 1920s, especially in rural areas? And to the Jews in the 1930s and 40s because they were short a few machine guns and other weaponry? The rest of the Western World is being pussyfied, but not America. Before Pearl Harbor I wouldn't have wanted war. After, if I had been around then, God help the Japs; here I come! It's in my DNA. I enlisted in the army in 1964. I wouldn't have but my life was blocked by conscription. I signed up for photography school. I so liked shooting guns ("This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun!") and the idea of actually being able to kill communists that I did that instead. But since Vietnam was such a stupid fuck up I left the army after one tour in the Mekong Delta. My best memory was when we accidentally went into Cambodia in 1966 and killed 56 of them to one of ours and he only a WIA. If Francis Ford Coppola had been there with his cameras he would have died and gone to heaven: helicopters disgorging Vietnamese troops, giant air-cushioned hovercraft, airboats and these communist jerks thinking they were safe had this semi-fortified almost western-looking town with a flag on a flagpole--it wasn't Cambodian--which we shot down with machine gun fire. This guy runs out and runs the flag back up the pole, so we shot it down twice. Then somebody became aware we were in Cambodia so we had to withdraw. General Abrams, no. 2 in Vietnam then, came by the next day for the debriefing. King/Prince Sihanouk complained a week later in such a way as to indicate he didn't know what was going on in that part of his country and had no control there. The nice thing was it was the same communist unit that had kicked our ass six days before. My worst memory wasn't the American next to me who got shot between the eyes, but the baby the mother brought to me--I was a medic--the day before he died of tetanus. I could do nothing. Go ask ten thousand German doctors if they've ever actually seen symptomatic tetanus. Only if they had gone abroad.

--Brant

got enemies

I had to mentally and emotionally "digest" all that first what you wrote here, Brant.

What one can seet a glance is that in terms of values, it is pretty much at the opposite spectrum of what I wrote in #468.

I'll name # 731 "the warrior post", for I think yours is the mentality of a warrior; you were one in Vietnam, and seem to have carrried over the attitude into your civilian life. I get the feeling that you still constantly feel "at war" in some way.

When reading your post, I thought of Ayn Rand word's about "one's life as the standard of value" - does this not comprise the life of "the Japs", the "enemy" Vietnamese and Cambodian troups too - of every human being in fact?

Are those labeled "enemies" less valuable human beings in your eyes?

Imo a soldier is only capable of killing one's fellow men in a war if he dissociates himself from the feeling of empathy for the other human being labeld "enemy".

My worst memory wasn't the American next to me who got shot between the eyes, but the baby the mother brought to me--I was a medic--the day before he died of tetanus.

That's where you were able to show empathy.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns, for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot. Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands.

You are lecturing a United States Army Special Forces combat veteran about firearms and fighting.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When you attentively read the recent interesting discussion between Michael and Jeffrey, again it becomes clear that values can't be anything but subjective.

Xray,

Absolutely wrong. Our discussion actually made it clear that values (including freedom) do not exist in a vacuum where no other values exist. Values coexist with other values and contexts. That is what our discussion made clear.

You pretend freedom (or any other value) does exist isolated from everything else in order to call it subjective. That is your conceptual flaw.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I walked my dog today, Xray. Nice, quiet neighborhood, but any "enemy" can drive into it with 3-4 minutes of effort, mug and leave. I had a .357 Colt Python revolver on my hip. Hollow point bullets. It's an American hing, refusing to be a victim. Things are going to get pretty bad the next five years. All sorts of crazies are coming out of the woodwork. Do you know what happened in Germany in the 1920s, especially in rural areas? And to the Jews in the 1930s and 40s because they were short a few machine guns and other weaponry? The rest of the Western World is being pussyfied, but not America. Before Pearl Harbor I wouldn't have wanted war. After, if I had been around then, God help the Japs; here I come! It's in my DNA. I enlisted in the army in 1964. I wouldn't have but my life was blocked by conscription. I signed up for photography school. I so liked shooting guns ("This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun!") and the idea of actually being able to kill communists that I did that instead. But since Vietnam was such a stupid fuck up I left the army after one tour in the Mekong Delta. My best memory was when we accidentally went into Cambodia in 1966 and killed 56 of them to one of ours and he only a WIA. If Francis Ford Coppola had been there with his cameras he would have died and gone to heaven: helicopters disgorging Vietnamese troops, giant air-cushioned hovercraft, airboats and these communist jerks thinking they were safe had this semi-fortified almost western-looking town with a flag on a flagpole--it wasn't Cambodian--which we shot down with machine gun fire. This guy runs out and runs the flag back up the pole, so we shot it down twice. Then somebody became aware we were in Cambodia so we had to withdraw. General Abrams, no. 2 in Vietnam then, came by the next day for the debriefing. King/Prince Sihanouk complained a week later in such a way as to indicate he didn't know what was going on in that part of his country and had no control there. The nice thing was it was the same communist unit that had kicked our ass six days before. My worst memory wasn't the American next to me who got shot between the eyes, but the baby the mother brought to me--I was a medic--the day before he died of tetanus. I could do nothing. Go ask ten thousand German doctors if they've ever actually seen symptomatic tetanus. Only if they had gone abroad.

--Brant

got enemies

I had to mentally and emotionally "digest" all that first what you wrote here, Brant.

What one can seet a glance is that in terms of values, it is pretty much at the opposite spectrum of what I wrote in #468.

I'll name # 731 "the warrior post", for I think yours is the mentality of a warrior; you were one in Vietnam, and seem to have carrried over the attitude into your civilian life. I get the feeling that you still constantly feel "at war" in some way.

When reading your post, I thought of Ayn Rand word's about "one's life as the standard of value" - does this not comprise the life of "the Japs", the "enemy" Vietnamese and Cambodian troups too - of every human being in fact?

Are those labeled "enemies" less valuable human beings in your eyes?

Imo a soldier is only capable of killing one's fellow men in a war if he dissociates himself from the feeling of empathy for the other human being labeld "enemy".

My worst memory wasn't the American next to me who got shot between the eyes, but the baby the mother brought to me--I was a medic--the day before he died of tetanus.

That's where you were able to show empathy.

If you show empathy for someone trying to kill you it's you who will likely be killed, if not your fellow soldiers.

Last night I saw a re-enactment of the battle for Iwo Jima. The guy with the flamethrower had a life expectancy of about five minutes because the Japanese always concentrated their fire on him. Pinned down by machinegun fire from several sources one such man was asked by his CO if he could do something about their situation. "I'll try."

He destroyed seven pill boxes or bunkers. In one maybe 17 Japanese were burned alive. In the last bunker the Japanese exited and charged him and he burned them up as they came while running out of fuel. He survived, they did not. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. He had empathy for his fellow soldiers but no time to do anything but fight and maybe die. Half the Americans who fought on Iwo were killed or wounded.

The horrors of war are the cake of combat and applying the frosting of empathy is only lipstick on a pig. The wars in such places as Korea and Vietnam likely saved us from the horrible consequences of general thermonuclear war in the 50s, 60s and on to this day. GTW would have likely killed 500,000,000 to a billion people and devastated the US, Europe and the USSR. That threat was the threat I grew up in and was consciously aware of since I learned about the atomic bomb. That's why I have a "warrior mentality."

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Polite dogma is still dogma. And I, for one, find dogma irritating.

Unless it is Objectivist dogma, then it is of course OK.

Here is a sample from the rational Objectivist arguments in this thread:

Xray, let me help Michelle out here. The definition of a lady is whatever you are not.

So long as her "subjective value" is what she chose, her "objective impact" will be as troll, something to be discarded, person with an agenda, etc.

You're just being dishonest at this point.

I guess xray get's empowered by emotional responses to her frigid German gestalt.

I'm not sure you are able to understand this, especially in your thirst to debunk Rand, so I will stop for now and see if it sinks in.

xray can only use the unsharpened crayons and the safety scissors. Also, the safety helmet for the banging head against the wall frustration moments.

Apparently the only thing you've ever read by Rand was 'check your premises' since you parrot it like a brain dead drooling pyschopath.

Your selective ignorance of critical points in this discussion is further evidence of your trolling nature, I can gain nothing further from discussions with you since you clearly seek no legitimate understanding or have any ration objections worth considering and you are clearly making an explicit effort to be a jerk or an idiot.

That's worse. In this case, when you ask for quotes, just like you did, as if you do not know what we are talking about, that can only mean 2 things:

1. You are stupid because you did not understand what you read, or

2. You are playing games.

Even you know better than that.

Xray,

Blah blah blah.

I think she is dishonest and playing games.

My judgment is that she selectively retains and selectively distorts Rand, other people's posts and is essentially a semantic charlatan.

I thought she was a better thinker than she is...

You are playing gotcha only with nothing of more substance. If I asked you for a pattern of how this develops, all you have is gotcha with Rand-bashing.

I don't think you know what Rand was getting at and I don't think you care.

The problem is that you do not speak English. You only speak Xray-speak.

You keep showing how little you know of Objectivism and how little you care about understanding it.

Your posts are excellent training for studying and recognizing how people deceive others intellectually.

You mentioned when you came here you used to belong to a cult. They certainly trained you well in rhetorical camouflage.

I have to keep an eye on you because you are prolific and polluting my forum with this kind of crap, thus newcomers could get the wrong impression of what this forum is about, but I have no other interest.

Try not to use big words like argumentation, since you exhibit almost no skill sets in that area.

Babes, this stuff just gets difficult for you, I understand.

You are really clueless and evasive.

So essentially you are the worst of both worlds a Calvinistic Skinnerian without any moral standards.

Shallow presumptuousness and nothing more.

It's a shame our posts here on OL are not tagged. I would tag Xray's posts under "vanity."

Arguing with Xray is like arguing with an intellectual zombie.

Lose your condescending effete language.

Nope - that skill is well above either your pay grade or mental skills.

Perhaps some Objectivists should brush up their Rand, for example taking this passage to heart:

Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket).

[Selene]

x-ray:

Sometimes it is necessary to just stop, think and say thank you Brant.

This is one of those times.

Thank you Brant.

Adam

[Xray]

suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns, for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot. Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands.

You are lecturing a United States Army Special Forces combat veteran about firearms and fighting.

--Brant

I was not lecturing you about firearms, but pointing out that not every "layperson" carrying a gun may be able to handle them as intended in an emergency.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns, for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot. Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands.

You are lecturing a United States Army Special Forces combat veteran about firearms and fighting.

--Brant

I was not lecturing you about firearms, but pointing out that not every "layperson" carrying a gun may be able to handle them as intended in an emergency.

Now you are saying water is wet. That is not what you said before.

--Brant

painful

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I could make a list at least 20 times longer of Xray's dogma, starting with the incessant parroting of "all values are subjective," yada yada yada, irrespective of what is said or discussed. I assure you that there are many, many, many such quotes of Xray's to each quote you posted.

But you just proved that politeness is not a contextless value. We are supposed to be discussing ideas here, not gaming the system to promote an agenda and preach (or mock the local yokels). Maybe you would call this a subjective value, but I call it an objective one with predictable results.

Gaming the system like spamming dogma and doing all that stuff in the Schopenhauer post is what really irritates folks. Politeness for politeness turns into rudeness against stubborn, false and prolific dogma. The nonstop dogma actually smacks of dishonesty and/or game-playing instead of idea discussing.

If you join a game of soccer and insist on sitting on the ball while you shoot craps, you are going to irritate people. That's just human nature. I see nothing out of the ordinary with this.

But let's look at the other end. How about I make a similar list of insult quotes from your own posts? Hmmmm?...

How do you think you would fare? I dare say it would not be pretty. Would that be because you are actually more fit for Solo Passion than here?

(What's good for the goose...)

Michael

[Christopher]

Wow, I'm starting a post when I can see two other people are already writing posts. How exciting!

The list of 38 ways to win an argument should be "38 ways to win an argument without your own argument having merit."

The problem is that it is difficult to argue intellectually with an individual who makes claims without premises. Remember, if everything is subjective, there can be no system upon which any claims are meaningful. As Michael states, there is a contradiction when one claims everything is subjective.

I noticed my argument has not been refuted yet. Just like Michael's post about facts and objectivity, Xray took my post that the system is human life, and instead of addressing it, he redefined life in terms not applicable to the discussion (as per "38 ways to win an argument without your own argument having merit")... and then evaded my followup.

The basic truth is one of logic and assertions. Simply put, a person with no premises can claim anything and refute anything because each assertion is independent of all other assertions and itself is arbitrary. Xray appears to be the ultimate arbitrary asserter par excellence. Ironic, considering how much he/she posted against arbitrary assertions. It doesn't take thought to assert or contradict statements, but it takes thought to make those assertions meaningful. My previous statements stand - a system is required to make assertions meaningful. What system in the universe upholds the assertion that all values are subjective? If no system can be defined, then the assertion is arbitrary.

Anyway, god knows why I post to a meaningless discussion. Perhaps I just get a little bit of joy out of sheer socialization in this forum...

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly, I appreciate you having a beef with Michael but if you have a beef with me please mention it when I make a post you don't like. As for Ayn Rand, she was one of the biggest psychologizers Objectivism has ever had. Her article on psychologizing was psychologizing in itself.

And as far as I'm concerned Xray deserved the "intellectual zombie" appellation because her selective way of continuous repetitive argument from a non-Objectivist context makes her little better than a spamming troll and is extremely rude. It is little more than argument by asseveration. She made all her points, valid or not, hundreds and hundreds of posts ago on this thread. She's reaping what she sowed.

--Brant

Edited August 17, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

x-ray:

Sometimes it is necessary to just stop, think and say thank you Brant.

This is one of those times.

Thank you Brant.

Adam

You're welcome. Now, if only the Europeans could say the same to the United States ...

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyway, god knows why I post to a meaningless discussion. Perhaps I just get a little bit of joy out of sheer socialization in this forum...

Christopher,

LOL...

I feel your pain... That's me, too...

Try running a forum sometimes. It's a laugh a minute...

btw - I searched for the word "subjective" in Xray's posts. The search program returned 200 results. That does not mean that Xray preached that values are not objective only 200 times. That means she preached her dogma using the word "subjective" 200 times. She obviously preached it much more. If I ever get the time, I might do a real analysis of her posts. (But is is worth it?)

Here is a thought for you. Xray and sympathizers consider the statement, "man is an end in himself," to be a value judgment, thus subjective (to them). Yet they consider, "all values are subjective," to not be a value judgment, thus fact (to them).

Can you discern the standard they used to arrive at this conclusion? I can't. It's a double standard used at rhetorical convenience.

EDIT: The part that stands out to me with the Schopenhauer thing within the present context is:

For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.

I have called this competitive rhetoric or competitive discussion when I have been asked countless times by Xray to prove her wrong, rebut her, give examples, yada yada yada, and saying that winning the point was not my aim, but I was just being polite. Schopenhauer nailed it.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

The problem is that it is difficult to argue intellectually with an individual who makes claims without premises. Remember, if everything is subjective, there can be no system upon which any claims are meaningful.

Did anyone say here that everything is subjective?

[Dragonfly]

suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns, for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot. Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands.

You are lecturing a United States Army Special Forces combat veteran about firearms and fighting.

--Brant

I was not lecturing you about firearms, but pointing out that not every "layperson" carrying a gun may be able to handle them as intended in an emergency.

Now you are saying water is wet. That is not what you said before.

Yes it was. It was obvious that she was not talking about a United States Army Special Forces combat veteran, but about the average person with no experience with firearms. You shouldn't jump to unwarranted conclusions in a knee-jerk reflex.

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly, I appreciate you having a beef with Michael but if you have a beef with me please mention it when I make a post you don't like.

If I had to mention every time I didn't like a post, I'd have no time for anything else.

As for Ayn Rand, she was one of the biggest psychologizers Objectivism has ever had.

She certainly didn't practice what she preached, but that is no reason to follow that bad habit.

Her article on psychologizing was psychologizing in itself.

Not really, she described the general method, not the motives of one particular person. There is a difference between describing a criminal mind and attributing that description to one particular person.

And as far as I'm concerned Xray deserved the "intellectual zombie" appellation because her selective way of continuous repetitive argument from a non-Objectivist context makes her little better than a spamming troll and is extremely rude. It is little more than argument by asseveration.

While I may not agree with everything she said, I must say that she gave more and better arguments than her opponents. But that "non-Objectivist context", that's of course a mortal sin...

[Dragonfly]

I could make a list at least 20 times longer of Xray's dogma, starting with the incessant parroting of "all values are subjective," yada yada yada, irrespective of what is said or discussed. I assure you that there are many, many, many such quotes of Xray's to each quote you posted.

Of course she's right that all values - at least according to Rand's own definition and examples - are subjective. So what's the problem?

But you just proved that politeness is not a contextless value. We are supposed to be discussing ideas here, not gaming the system to promote an agenda and preach (or mock the local yokels).

Again psychologizing. She is the one who is discussing ideas, giving may good arguments, but apparently dissenting ideas are not welcome here.

Gaming the system like spamming dogma and doing all that stuff in the Schopenhauer post is what really irritates folks. Politeness for politeness turns into rudeness against stubborn, false and prolific dogma. The nonstop dogma actually smacks of dishonesty and/or game-playing instead of idea discussing.

More psychologizing. Do you think that this is the way to win over outsiders? Objectivists are quick to see dogma in contributions from others, but are blind to the dogmatic structure of their own ideas. Small wonder that Objectivists are so eminently unsuccessful in convincing other people. They will always remain a very marginal group without any significant influence, that has nothing to do with "the split", that's merely a symptom, not a cause.

But let's look at the other end. How about I make a similar list of insult quotes from your own posts? Hmmmm?...

How do you think you would fare? I dare say it would not be pretty. Would that be because you are actually more fit for Solo Passion than here?

You'll only find that on the very rare occasion that I've made a personal attack, I was merely returning the compliment, I'm not a follower of the "turning the other cheek" philosophy.

[Brant Gaede]

It's not a "mortal sin," DF. It's only that this is an Objectivist forum. It's not called "Subjectivist Living." I guarantee you that if she started a site called that hardly anyone would come. That's because subjectivism, except for some epistemological twiddling, is contentless. If it were otherwise it would only be another one of the many objectivisms she complains about ruining the world for nice people. Her basic message is Objectivism is hogwash. She hasn't exactly said that but she has all but said that.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I am a bit amused at your total blindness to the volume and repetitious contextless dogma in Xray's posts. I believe the idea of not seeing the 800 pound gorilla in the room applies to such blindness. You claim Xray makes fine arguments. I only see glimmers of them. But then she bludgeons the glimmer to meaningless tripe with her repeated dogma.

Do you think that this is the way to win over outsiders?

There is a mistaken perception here. I am not interested in winning anything with OL. Nor winning anyone over to anything other than thinking for themselves in goodwill.

Michael