[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Derek,

I'm mostly in agreement with your posts on this thread, but regarding the animal rights stuff, in fairness to Robert it does seem to me as though he was talking about using meat for food. Or have I missed something?

Edited to add: I guess Robert's actual choice of words could have been better.
MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 6/24, 12:05pm)




Post 41

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmmmmmm - of course Linzy has a dog - doesn't he rub it down every nite?



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Scott DeSalvo wrote:

This has evolved into such a strange place. My 'bullshit' detector goes into overdrive when I see people falling all over themselves to thank Barbara in the most effusive of praise, even though her article is spot on. There is something unsettling in it.


Yes.
Or those who come on, confrontational and almost thug-like when others present their views (which seem to be that some criticism is warranted, which would essentially AGREE with Barbara's article). Again, unsettling.

As a confrontational thug, I should hit you with my blackjack for saying that I essentially agree.
... SOLO is still, by far, the best thing going.

We must say this, of course, again and again and again, lest we be accused of SOLO-bashing.
But I am finding myself shaking my head silently at the screen more and more.
Yes. Of course, my heads shakes at the SOLO screen just about as much as it shakes at the human race in general.

Advocates of reason are, in general, just about as emotionalistic, self-contradictory, irrational, and downright absurd as any randomly-selected group of their peers, even though the latter have probably not uttered the word "logic" once within the last decade.

This thread is living proof. That's why our heads are shaking, Mr. DeSalvo--theirs at us, of course, and ours at them.

Nathan "The Thug" Hawking




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Matthew wrote:

Nathan,


First, Robert Bisno QUOTES BARBARA BRANDEN'S comments on Linz. Yet we see nobody accuse Ms. Branden of "sniping" at Linz.
There is a difference between those who recognise Linz's greatness offering constructive criticism on the one hand, and those who don't recognise his achievements jumping at the opportunity to engage in Linz bashing on the other.

MH


If I hear someone pay gushing homage to Lindsay one more time in the next hour, I think I'm gonna gag.

Same for calling SOLO "sunlit."

Are SOLO and Lindsay so fragile that we must sing hosannahs every time someone dares to frown around here?

Ferchrissakes, I almost feel obligated to add 'Linz and SOLO are GREAT!' to this post lest I be accused of treason. What's next, loyalty oaths?

To your point, Matthew, there may be a difference, but are we actually SEEING that difference in Mr. Bisno's post? I read the post, and I don't see it. 

Nathan Hawking




 




Post 44

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert Davison wrote:

... but as I have noted elsewhere we are responsible for our own emotions.  No one makes us feel bad, we choose to feel bad.

 

This is incorrect. At best, we can mitigate and influence our emotions, and we can repress and deny them, but in general we DO NOT "choose" them.

Neither do they arise as a sole consequence of our philosophical "premises."

In short, people who act like asses toward others, who habitually malign motives and use degrading or condescending terms, are not getting a free pass. They are responsible for initiating psychological violence, and cannot evade this responsibility by declaring the victim responsible. 
There is also the question of not knowing what will offend. 
Almost everything we say is guaranteed to offend someone. But that doesn't entitle us to say things which would offend almost anyone.

Those with thick skins may be less aware of what others find offensive, but if they pay attention to their experiences with other people, and do not shrug off the reactions of others, they can become at least intellectually--even if not empathetically--aware of what bothers most reasonable people.

Nathan Hawking




Post 45

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sheeeeesh Nathan.... get a life!!!!   Pretty soon you will be candy striping your own posts.



Post 46

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm - then we can call him Peppermint Pat, he?




Post 47

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, Robert -- Heckler Meant Nattering!



Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think more cut-and-dried moderation would solve most of this and encourage less-vitriolic posting. Any paragraphs or posts that are clearly over the line, the moderators could delete immediately, leaving in its place a comment from the moderator: "[deleted for over-the-line incivility]." There is no need to leave personal vitriol up for all eternity for everybody to stew over.

 

Threads that are going off the deep end could be shut down somewhere before the 999th iteration of the same gotcha-squared loop. The editorial advisory might read "Thread now closed." Better yet, keep threads open for only a set time anyway.

 

Daily Pundit now closes threads after five days because of spam. (Though there are so many threads at DP anyway that rarely does a thread get more than a few dozen posts or last more than two or three days.) If SHQ threads have a limited life span, there can't be the endless jostling to get the last word in. Immediately starting a new thread that is simply a carbon copy of the old thread would be frowned upon. Routine transgressors could simply be banned, perhaps after one or two public warnings of the problem.

 

Sure, what constitutes "clearly over the line" is itself debatable, but that's life. And that's why there's more than one discussion group on the Internet. Even if the moderation isn't perfect, if it's clear and definitive enough, the site wouldn't get bogged down in demoralizing cat fights. You would not have any opportunities for these infinities of angst. MovingOn would just be standard procedure.




Post 49

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, David, for some thoughtful suggestions.  I especially like the idea of limited life threads and moderation of caustic posts.  Perhaps the management will give these ideas serious consideration, especially considering their evident success at a widely read site.
(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/24, 7:07pm)




Post 50

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan, I am detecting a pattern.  You are not responsible for your emotions, you are not responsible as a citizen if your government sucks, you are not responsible.



Post 51

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes David, we can not be trusted to control ourselves.  We have to have a leader to tell us when we are bad.  All hail the leader.



Post 52

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert Davison wrote:

Nathan, I am detecting a pattern.  You are not responsible for your emotions, you are not responsible as a citizen if your government sucks, you are not responsible.

 

 
The implication of your post is that I encourage evasion of responsibility.

On the contrary, I am extending the notion of responsibility to those who inflict unneccessary injury on other human beings, whether the context is war or debate.

People who unnecessarily inflict injury on other people are responsible for their deeds.

The injured are responsible for their own responses to those injuries, to the degree those responses are volitional.

If the issue is who is avoiding and who is accepting responsibility for their own actions, I am 100% comfortable with my own position. Take from that what you will.

Nathan Hawking




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan,

How could anybody call you irresponsible; after helping to save us from Luke's posse? 

You are in fact responsible for your emotions.  They were given to you by your brain in early childhood.  Unfortunately you have forgotten all about those events; or worse, they were SO traumatic that you repressed the memory of the occasions; erroneously thinking, out of sight; out of mind. It is those seeds of our emotions that grow and thrive throughout our lives. When we live deliberately, we take on the responsibility for understanding our emotions. When emotions aren't working for us , we have an added  responsibility to unearth from our emotional history, the source of those unhelpful seeds.  If we don't embrace that responsibility, with the same vigour that we argue semantics and other pedantic issues; then we are neglecting a very important part of our development.  The result is; every time a watering can full of bad news comes along, those seeds are watered, and they burst out of the ground in full bloom.  This depends of course, on the strength with which the seeds were planted in the first place; and how much they've been watered.

I haven't heard anyone say how Rand solved this search and understand mission; but one way to begin is; to examine earliest recollections of that  negative feeling of the hour; and to write a thesis on the event, living through every emotionally-packed moment. That's what psychotherapy is all about. Once you unearth this knowledge, you will be able to choose thoughtfully and plan your response, from a wide catalogue; in order to achieve the desired affect.


If you aren't responsible for YOUR emotions, Nathan, then who is?  If you want ME to be held responsible for the one you are having this very second; then I'll start the process of speculating (until I get it right) on your earliest recollection  of feeling exactly this way, so many many years ago; until you scream UNCLE.

If the thought of this makes you roar with laughter; then start with that one, as an experiment.  It's like cleaning up your hard drive of obsolete information.

If  Rand had a better idea; as far as I can see; it's being suppressed.  If I'm sounding sarcastic or nasty in my tone, I can't help it.

All Best
Sharon




Post 54

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Leader. leader - ah yes, the english word for Fuhrer...............



Post 55

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 11:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sharon wrote:

Nathan,

How could anybody call you irresponsible; after helping to save us from Luke's posse? 

LOL Father forgive them. They know not what they do. The ingrates.
...
If you aren't responsible for YOUR emotions, Nathan, then who is? 
************** 'Taking You Seriously' Warning **************

It depends. Who is the proximate cause?

Other people can cause emotional responses in us. You don't really think you're the sole cause of that pounding heart when you had your first kiss, do you?

If you do, then do an experiment: produce those emotional reactions in yourself right now, without a partner. I predict that unless you have an enviably vivid imagination, or 30 years of acting lessons, you will not be successful.
...
If  Rand had a better idea; as far as I can see; it's being suppressed.  If I'm sounding sarcastic or nasty in my tone, I can't help it.
I am having difficulty following you, I'm afraid. I can't tell exactly what you mean and which side you're having fun with, so I just pulled some stuff out and addressed it literally even if like a boring pedant.

Sorry--best I can do right now. I'm getting word-weary, I think.

Nathan Hawking





 




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 56

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 12:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just as an exercise in futility, I decided to do some statistics on the posts on this thread. I wanted to see if I my impression was correct or if I was being unfair to Nathan and others. Here is what I came up with. The chart is given at the end and the interpretation here.
 
There is one article and 56 posts. There are 28 posters up to Post 55 (but not including my present post) and they are listed on the chart in descending order according to word count, but giving their post numbers in parentheses.
 
In number of posts, Nathan wins by a long shot, having a total of 10 posts. I came in second place with 4. Six posters had 3 posts and the rest had 2 or 1 posts.
 
In word count, Nathan wins by a much larger margin. Out of a total of 6382 words, including the article, 2036 words are in his 10 posts and 4346 words are in the 45 posts by the remaining 27 posters.
 
That is somewhere around 30% of the total words in this thread, including the article, being posted by one poster only from among 28 posters. In terms of content, Nathan focuses mainly on the two subjects of insisting on setting criteria for restraints in posting on Solo and responding nastily to harsh critics. Barbara’s article dealt with an appeal to stop bashing Linz and get back to the good times.
 
I will let the readers draw their own conclusions from the facts as found.
 
Michael


 Name
Posts
No. of Words
1
Nathan Hawking (11, 13, 20, 21, 30, 42, 43, 44, 52, 55)

10 Posts

2036

2
Derek McGovern (25, 32)

2 Posts

465

3
Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald (53)

1 Post

388

4
Pete (29)

1 Post

363

5
Barbara Branden (Article, 12, 23)

3 Posts

348

6
Newberry (26)

1 Post

335

7
Robert Bisno (9, 37, 38)

3 Posts

316

8
Robert Bidinotto (18)

1 Post

313

9
David M. Brown (48)

1 Post

259

10
Michael Stuart Kelly (5, 15, 19, 39)

4 Posts

217

11
Max (34)

1 Post

193

12
Matthew Humphreys (8, 36, 40)

3 Posts

169

13
Ethan Dawe (1, 10)

2 Posts

141

14
Robert Davison (35, 50, 51)

3 Posts

141

15
Scott DeSalvo (2, 33)

2 Posts

123

16
Peter Cresswell (6, 16, 31)

3 Posts

109

17
James Kilbourne (22)

1 Post

91

18
Ruth (27)

1 Post

87

19
Dean Michael Gores (28)

1 Post

79

20
Luke Setzer (0, 47, 49)

3 Posts

67

21
James Heaps-Nelson (3)

1 Post

39

22
robert malcom

2 Posts

26

23
katdaddy (24, 45)

2 Posts

21

24
Scott Schiff (7)

1 Post

19

25
Brant Gaede (14)

1 Post

15

26
Alec Mouhibian (4)

1 Post

10

27
robert malcom (54)

1 Post

10

28
Sam Pierson (17)

1 Post

2






Post 57

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 2:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
woot, I have to get better ;) No, seriously... But I think Nathan tipped of an interesting part with the suggestion that he is not responsible for his emotions. In part this is right, because the instinct works faster than the reasoned thought, but this does not prevent you from counter-acting the primal emotion when you think it is only momentary event.
Sometimes emotions are based on a hurt ego or a flattered one and are not connected to your higher values in life. They can result from contradiction of premises or a limited set of datas your body has to evaluate in a split second.

So, are you responsible for your emotions no, but you are responsible for the deeds that derive from those emotions and thoughts.




Post 58

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max and Nathan,

 I am referring to the earliest recollection  that one has, of having experienced that same feeling. It's the  recognition reflex of a perterbance in the subconscious.

The ideas that I am introducing are from a book, which I consider very compatable with Rand's philosophy for living your life to the fullest as a singularity.  

MY LOVER, MYSELF, self discovery through relationships. David Kantor,1999.  Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam Inc.

This book describes a process whereby we can explore the basic myths about the self that were formed by childhood; and if left unexplored, cause us to lose out on life's greatest opportunity to become the best people we can be.  It was written for couples; but I see in it an application for relationships in general. 

This is especially true about the "personal myth", the origin of desire and why we look for love and approval. It stems from the broken promise made at birth to us, that life is and always would be perfect.  The realization of that "broken contract of love, the painful realization of separateness that comes in childhood"  prompts the search for the " right other" to repair the wound of that broken promise. If the myth is left unexplored,we set ourselves up to have our unspoken contract broken over and over. 

When we argue incessantly, (as I do much less than I did before), it is to get agreement from the other as a means of obtaining (by the other embracing our wonderful  idea, which is a deep part of our self)  a feeling of being loved and worthwhile. It is through our relations with others that the contents of that myth are revealed. When we explore the myth of that belief, we can begin to heal the old wounds; and not have to gain the opponent's approval, by winning the argument.

I cannot argue proofs for  this; but I will listen to questions and try to find  answers from the book. I'll try to be brief.

Sharon 




Post 59

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan,

It's too late to explore the source of that pounding heart.  It has to be done while you are in the throws of passion.  It's not the idea of the feeling; it's a manifestation of the original feeling that is being sought.  It is being there and doing it, using your adult mind to explore what the small child experienced but couldn't comprehend or speak except perhaps as cry.  Once this event is replicated in adulthood and  placed into it's proper perspective, it is possible to begin freeing oneself of the bad adult habits that are not conducive to amicable relations.

A psychiatrist would be the one to explain all this properly

To change behaviour one must change the self first; otherwise the change is merely superficial behaviour modification.

Sharon

Wait til I tell my partner in all things worthwhile, that I have to stop and look into my past before we go any further.  Good advice for adolescents, though.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]