A Randian Falacy

[tjohnson]

You cannot prove that a fetus is human or not? Yet again I ask for a definition of Human. I gave mine. Without a definition you cannot PROVE anyone or anything is human. Define, Define, Define.

OK, a human is a 6 months or greater fetus. So if its less that 6 months old its not human and has no rights.

Ok thank you general semanticist you have given me a place to start. Now why 6 months. is 6 arbitrary or is it an objective definition? if objective please explain why a fetus that is one day 182 days old is less Human than a fetus that is 183 days old? The problem is that you really have not given the definition (essence) of Human, you have said when but not why.

Why? Because we have to draw the line somewhere, that's why. No "objective definition" is going to solve this problem. BTW, I use a definition of human from Korzybski which goes like this; A human is a creature that can pass on its knowledge from one generation to the next using in such a way that we enjoy exponential progress. Does a fetus satisfy this definition? Sadly no. In fact, most adult humans don't satisfy this definition.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've been thinking a lot about what to do with this thread.

Being a traffic cop for a demolition derby is no fun.

So let's try it this way:

Knock off the crap, folks. There are no prizes to be won by insulting people you disagree with.

This thread is a prime candidate for the Garbage Pile.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

equality (Alan),

Abortion is a sore point on Objectivist forums. That's because some fundamental things collide and there is no easy answer. Here is the quick version:

Biologically, it is silly to imagine that a zygote is anything but human life. And it is silly to imagine an individual human being without the zygote stage being the start of his/her unique DNA.

Socially, you have two individuals involved, the newcomer and the mother.

Socially from a biological perspective, you have two individuals using the same body for a period of approximately nine months.

Philosophically, according to Objectivism, individual rights are individual and unique to each individual.

All this collides when people start looking at right to life, non initiation of force and so forth forth and notice instances when preserving the rights (as defined in Objectivism) of both individuals at the same time is impossible.

The typical Objectist view (starting with Rand) is simply to redefine human life and claim that a fetus is not a human being,at least not in the early stages. That's a view, I guess, but I find it vastly oversimplified. It does resolve the problem of preserving the rights of one without violating the rights of the other, but it does so at the expense of removing the life cycle from the definition of human being.

Rand defined man as rational animal, with rational being the differentia and animal the genus. Claiming that an early-stage fetus is not a human being essentially removes the genus from her definition. Thus the life cycle does not include the zygote stage when she defines human being, which means that humans are not animals. In other words, humans are rational somethings, but not rational animals.

Don't expect to find any agreement on this issue. It's one of the built-in collisions between principle and reality within Objectivism. It can only be resolved by deriving the principle from reality, not ignoring the parts of reality that do not fit the principle. And that would mean coming up with a new principle that includes application to both individuals (mother and child during pregnancy), but that would mean saying that the present principle is incomplete.

And that bothers a lot of people. Thus, discussions about abortion on Objectivist (and even libertarian) boards are always heated and always go nowhere.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Ten thousand excuses for not writing clearly

> I did not present a summary for good reason... [EQ]

People don't have unlimited time. Most will either skip or simply 'skim' a long-winded post if you haven't edited it to let us know the topic/point of view right away.

Your choice.

> I don't have the time to write longer [posts] for the most part regardless. [brant]

Why is that? Does President Obama have you on speed dial?

> It is my experience as a general rule that most objectivists know rands view of abortion. [EQ]

I wonder if one were to suggest the proper use of capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and grammar, the answer would be I can't be bothered, I'm too big a genius to waste my time mastering rules that make it easier for my readers?

There was a guy who used to post on every Oist board (Morganis something?) who would start every paragraph in every post with a squiggle (~). No matter how politely you pointed out to him that it was distracting to the reader, nothing whatsoever would persuade him to change. It was the IAHRSI (I Am Howard Roark, Super-Individualist) syndrome. And how dare you criticize me.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Philip Coates

[anthony]

Equality.

"Emotionalistic"? yeah, I suppose I was. But then to the potential parents, abortion is often an emotional subject. Not that it gives me any authority having been there.

Ayn Rand took care of the rights issue - all the rest is up to the individual's values and morality.

IMO, any discussion beyond that is prescriptive moralizing and rationalization.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Be careful you don't blame the one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest for not kicking with both feet.

Seriously, just be glad he's doing it and try to meet him halfway. I believe you will see an interesting mind if you take the effort.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

> I don't have the time to write longer [posts] for the most part regardless. [brant]

Why is that? Does President Obama have you on speed dial?

It's personal.

--Brant

Edited August 4, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Dragonfly]

There was a guy who used to post on every Oist board (Morganis something?) who would start every paragraph in every post with a squiggle (~). No matter how politely you pointed out to him that it was distracting to the reader, nothing whatsoever would persuade him to change. It was the IAHRSI (I Am Howard Roark, Super-Individualist) syndrome. And how dare you criticize me.

Yes, I know that kind of person. He continues for example to use a completely inadequate way of quoting (pointed out to him many times by several readers), but nothing whatsoever will persuade him to change.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wonder if one were to suggest the proper use of capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and grammar, the answer would be I can't be bothered, I'm too big a genius to waste my time mastering rules that make it easier for my readers?

Now that takes the cake. I wonder if one were to suggest proper identification of the source of the post material one is quoting, the answer would be I can't be bothered, etc. It continues to be your answer.

Possibly you didn't notice, "Equality" is dyslexic.

There was a guy who used to post on every Oist board (Morganis something?) who would start every paragraph in every post with a squiggle (~). No matter how politely you pointed out to him that it was distracting to the reader, nothing whatsoever would persuade him to change. It was the IAHRSI (I Am Howard Roark, Super-Individualist) syndrome. And how dare you criticize me.

Morganis Chamlo. He posted here for a time under his real name, John Dailey. As irritating as I, too, found Morganis/John's posting style, I think your diagnosis is wrong. He explained that he had an aversion to flush paragraphing, so he used the squiggle in lieu of paragraph indentation.

Ellen

Edit: Ha Ha, DF! We cross-posted.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Reidy]

Re #24: "Stolen concept" first appears in Galt's radio speech. Branden's article quotes this and expands on it.

[kiaer.ts]

So, the response to the claim that IToE is the greatest work of philosophy since Aristotle is, Nathaniel Branden (who obviously came up with the idea on his own?) wrote a short article on the idea? This doesn't even rise to the level of senseless "gotcha" posting.

Equality, in case I didn't make it absolutely clear, your contempt for Rand and your readers and the implied claim that I have a duty to educate you don't motivate me. If you want to send me a private email admitting you were wrong in your overblown criticism of Rand as unoriginal, I will read it. Otherwise I doubt I'll be paying your rhetoric much attention.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the quote from Atlas Shrugged (John Galt's speech):

As they feed on stolen wealth in body, so they feed on stolen concepts in mind, and proclaim that honesty consists of refusing to know that one is stealing. As they use effects while denying causes, so they use our concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using. As they seek, not to build, but to take over industrial plants, so they seek, not to think, but to take over human thinking.

Not exactly a discourse in rhetoric, but the fundamental elements are there for describing a corrupt conceptual thinking process.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

There is no way in hell, based on what little you have read of this poster, that you can know whether he holds contempt for Rand and readers. There are many possibilities for his position other than contempt. Until you get to know his thinking better, you would have to be some kind of mind-reader to say for sure.

So in case I wasn't clear, knock it off.

Baseless and snarky accusations are not ideas.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

There is no way in hell, based on what little you have read of this poster, that you can know whether he holds contempt for Rand and readers.

So in case I wasn't clear, knock it off.

Baseless and snarky accusations are not ideas.

Michael

He said that Rand's ideas are not original and that those of us who treat her as special do so from what amount to religious motives. You can call or not call that whatever you like.

I responded that ItOE proves otherwise, and was told that that was irrelevant, that I should answer his questions without expecting him to respond to my counterexample or to defend himself. I think that type of rhetoric speaks for itself, and have simply made myself clear that I won't be taking him seriously. I haven't called anyone names, made baseless insults, asked for this thread to be closed or asked for this poster to be banned. Just said that I won't participate any more on these grounds. If that's okay, I have nothing more to say on the matter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just said that I won't participate any more on these grounds. If that's okay, I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Ted,

That's perfect.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Just said that I won't participate any more on these grounds. If that's okay, I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Ted,

That's perfect.

Michael

Of course. Erveything I do is prefect.

[Philip Coates]

> I believe you will see an interesting mind [EQ]if you take the effort.

Michael, an interesting mind to me usually starts by being someone who can recognize valid constructive criticism. And changes his behavior accordingly.

To whoever made the snarky reply about the quote function {DF? Ellen?], I've already explained why in my view, the method I'm using is better and simpler, takes up less space, and avoids 'nesting'. Plus on this site, it's abused. People quote what A said then nest what B said inside it and nest A gain inside it. And pretty soon a page has been taken up and you have to flip back a few pages.

So no need to keep bringing it up: we simply disagree.

As far, as mentioning the post time or number, that is usually not necessary unless it's many days ago. Unless you are an obsessive-compulsive who needs to reread everything and have memory problems.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

If you don't like the technology, you might want to consider giving the post number so people can reference correctly who you are quoting.

There is no reason to withhold this information and it is not a lot of effort to add it since you are copy/pasting.

Just a thought you might want to recognize as valid constructive criticism. And maybe change your behavior accordingly...

Michael

[Dragonfly]

To whoever made the snarky reply about the quote function {DF? Ellen?], I've already explained why in my view, the method I'm using is better and simpler, takes up less space, and avoids 'nesting'. Plus on this site, it's abused. People quote what A said then nest what B said inside it and nest A gain inside it. And pretty soon a page has been taken up and you have to flip back a few pages.

That's a weird argument, not using a certain option because some people abuse that option.

The only reason you use your way of quoting is because you think it's better, AFAIK nobody else on this list thinks so, on the contrary. The IHRSI syndrome indeed. What is the difference with John Daily's use of squiggles that you criticized? He used them because he thought it was the best way to start a paragraph, while nobody else on the list did. Mote, beam, pot, kettle.

[kiaer.ts]

Mote, beam, pot, kettle.

With Kim Novak, Ernie Kovacs, Jack Lemmon, Jimmy Stewart and Hermione Gingold? An absolute classic!

[Philip Coates]

> AFAIK nobody else on this list thinks so, on the contrary [DF]

Argument dismissed: First, numbers don't make truth. Second, you can't even tell that because only a handful of people have expressed an opinion.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Michael and Dragonfly,

My post #29 was a perfectly valid criticism of poor writing that affects the clarity and ease of discussion. If you reread it, you will it was not directed at just one person. Both of you have read the post and are intelligent enough to know when you first read it that my points were sound. And useful.

And yet you chose to attack me on an unrelated issue [the quote function. Why would you raise another issue when it was not logically connected to the points I raised?

Both of you, if you are being honest know that the quote function is not the point I was making.

If you really look inside yourself psychologically, you will see that you just wanted to make a snide crack. Something like "ha, ha, you make mistakes too!"

I hope you can see that that sort of thing is *even worse* than simple errors in punctuation or syntax. It is mean-spirited. It is snide. It makes enemies, undercuts civil discourse, and is not really arguing in good faith.

Even if you were right about the quote function.

My hope is that you will not try to reply to this in a defensive or resentful manner, but will simply accept what I've pointed out here.

,,,,,

Michael, you in particular have posted repeatedly that you don't like the level or argument and discourse in Objectivist circles. I hope that - instead of launching a "rebuttal" to this post or another attack on me (whom you clearly resent for some reason) - you can simply do the hard thing, requiring introspection and self-control. And simply admit that this post makes some valid points.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I'm going to be blunt with you. If you want to constantly point the finger at others, you have to back it up with consistency in your acts.

You don't.

That smacks of hypocrisy.

Since everybody generally likes you, nobody wants to outright call you a hypocrite. Neither do I.

But, dude, you're going to have to walk your talk a bit. Help us out a little.

Blah blah blah about others all the time is aggravating, especially when you constantly do the opposite of your own advice.

Once you start becoming consistent, I believe the discourse will change on its own. That's what happens with intelligent people of good will.

In fact, it won't even even need you to tell folks how to post...

Or... continue acting like a petulant child tattling on everybody while your own hand is in the cookie jar. It's your call. But should you continue, you take what you get. I'm certainly not going to intervene when folks are right, no matter how much I like you.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

As far, as mentioning the post time or number, that is usually not necessary unless it's many days ago. Unless you are an obsessive-compulsive who needs to reread everything and have memory problems.

Notice that you limit the possibilities as to why someone wants to know the context to negative presumptions. The assumption of negative character traits and motivations is another of the behaviors you've repeatedly criticized others for engaging in and have repeatedly been guilty of yourself when someone's been critical of you. This issue of criticizing your inadequate referencing of quotes isn't even an issue of criticizing you as a person, though you take it as "snarky." It's criticizing a posting habit which makes attempting to discourse with you a nuisance for a person who wants to know the context of a quote in assessing the quote. Since you often in quoting select snippets which, upon the context's being checked, can be seen to have *not* fairly conveyed the context, checking is especially important with your posts. Most others here typically provide at least enough of the post quoted so a reader can judge the accuracy of interpretation of the reply.

Ellen

Edited August 5, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[kiaer.ts]

Mote, beam, pot, kettle.

With Kim Novak, Ernie Kovacs, Jack Lemmon, Jimmy Stewart and Hermione Gingold? An absolute classic!

And, in other news, there is still no one sexier than Kim Novak.