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 3


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom:
>Assuming that you're talking to me,

I don't think Brendan is. But I'll assume you're including me in the following comment, so I'll respond:

>The problem I have with you guys is not your questions, it's that you expect me to answer them from your context, knowing that I don't share it. As far as I can see, that gives us no mutual ground to stand on.

Tom, by 'context', do you actually mean 'premises'? That is, unless I agree with all your premises, we can't discuss anything? What if I only agree with *some* of them? Will that restrict what we can talk about usefully? Does it mean we'll only discuss what we already fundamentally agree on?

For example, I can think of some obvious mutual ground: *physical reality exists prior to our consciousness of it*. How about that?

Meanwhile, from my point of view, you are welcome to criticise *any* of my premises.

For example, here is premise you may *not* agree with: Humans are fallible, and can make mistakes. Would we still be able to discuss this?

Further, I am happy to discuss any subject (as long as it's not boring) with people who share *none* of my premises. In fact far from making conversation impossible, I would regard these as potentially interesting and challenging debates. My premises could, after all, be wrong, and such people could to me an inestimable favour by correcting them.

- Daniel


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 11:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great article, Lindsay.  It's an important topic, and the relevance on SOLO is obvious.  We need to be familiar with the post-modernist's goals and tactics.

The cult of moral grayness is not the goal, it's a tool.  It's intended to invalidate reason.  The pomo is fundamentally anti-reason.  They don't seek to prove anything, but to invalidate proofs.  They don't want to argue rape is moral, they want to argue that we can't really be sure that it's immoral.  They drop context, they switch definitions, they create package deals (don't judge a rape by the action, but by any accidental, unintended consequence), they nit-pick, they deal in motives (attacking the person) instead of argument, and they use every logical fallacy in the book to confuse, obscure, and destroy.  They push ideas like multiculturalism to claim there is no truth.  They argue for determinism so your ideas are just a product of your background, sex, class, race, or anything else except reason.  The accuse you of intolerance or racism or anything else (like cultism) if you still insist on defending reason.  They say "I'm willing to admit I could be wrong!  Why can't you do the same?".

Just read the cultism thread.  See if the pomos are trying to clarify or obscure.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 11:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> "First, do you see any similarity between what I just did, what you did in your post to me, and what Leonard did in his response to you? We all assumed that something was 'Obvious' that wasn't." [Tom R]

I think I see your point. I was reacting out of still feeling irritated a while earlier at a previous post which didn't bother to read what I'd said, and I was assuming without carefully thinking you were implying something you weren't which was in the same vein. Sort of like, "OhChristHere'sAnotherOne". Sorry!

In the case of Leonard's reaction to me though, I think he took it as a hostile question, even though it wasn't worded or intended that way. I wish I had the tape so I could tell. Oh well, water under the bridge.

"It is, I've concluded in my old age, part of the human condition. Perhaps it's an unfortunate by-product of the fact that our time is limited and we don't want to take the time to explain what appears obvious to us (that Rand did this on occasion seems pretty clear on the evidence) but isn't to others. Forums like this are particularly susceptible to the by-products of this: 1) we don't really give well thought out answers to honest questions, 2) we don't always ask well thought out questions (so they appear dishonest), and 3) we don't read carefully the responses we do get, particularly if they are well-thought-out and therefore, looong."

Some really good points, Tom! I think Rand and Peikoff, plus you, me, all of us just get tired and frustrated by what seem to us repeated or obvious questions and then, worn down, sometimes don't treat them with proper care or respect - or leap to negative, non-benevolent conclusions about the questioner.

Personally, I try not to post in a hurry or in anger. But some times I allow what a psycho nutball I really am to slip through...

...Maybe like Linz, I should take some nicotine to calm my nerves and then I can become as mellow as he regularly is.

:-)
Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/06, 11:18pm)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 11:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Joe—you wrote of the pomo (who pretend they're not) pusballs:

They don't want to argue rape is moral, they want to argue that we can't really be sure that it's immoral.  They drop context, they switch definitions, they create package deals (don't judge a rape by the action, but by any accidental, unintended consequence), they nit-pick, they deal in motives (attacking the person) instead of argument, and they use every logical fallacy in the book to confuse, obscure, and destroy.

Exactly!

Note how my claim that the pusballs "can never bring themselves to a black-and-white appraisal of anything, even something so foul as rape" is whined about in such telling defensiveness by pusball Barnes as "Linz's feeble attempt to make out that a perfectly reasonable, rational guy like Laj is actually tacitly endorsing rape."

I'm not making out any such thing. To say that the pomo pusballs support, not just rape, but every evil, tacitly, would be letting them off the hook. They are worse than open advocates of rape, in that, like Toohey, they sugar-coat their vileness with a semblance of sweet reason. But tacit is too weak a word. "Perfectly reasonable, rational"? The pusballs are "perfect" in their evil. As I said, slow, subtle, insidious.

My words bear repeating:

We see such pusballs gatecrashing on SOLOHQ. Not the excrement-framers themselves, but their philosophical parents. Their stock-in-trade is ambiguity, uncertainty, “well yes, but ...,” “not necessarily”—verbal clutter and entropy. They slither around in what Ayn Rand would call the “hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all.” Under the guise of “critical thinking,” they commit to nothing, and try to cast doubt on everything. Their goal is to destroy the hero in the souls of those they engage, because they resent it. They want to destroy it, not in one fell swoop, but “spark by irreplaceable spark”—slowly, subtly, insidiously. That’s what their verminous verbosity is all about. Inch by inch they seek to envelop their victims in their slime, till all sparks are extinguished.

Note how the pusballs have no respect for property rights, continuing their "gatecrashing," accusing me of using a "bully pulpit" as though it's theirs! The shame is that decent people like Bill Dwyer and Robert Campbell are being seduced into engaging the pusballs. I guess the decent Dwyers of this world haven't been around SOLO long enough to know what unutterable scum these creatures are.

Linz

PS - MSK has drawn my attention to a new site that would suit the pusballs to their heinous hilt: wetheunthinking.com or something like that, started by one of their own. Why don't they just bugger off there?!


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 2:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz:
>Note how the pusballs have no respect for property rights, continuing their "gatecrashing," accusing me of using a "bully pulpit" as though it's theirs!

Linz, all you needed to do is ask directly, as you have now, and I am more than happy to leave. I thought I made that perfectly clear from my earliest correspondence with you. It is your property. Frankly I don't like a lot of the whinging that goes on around such issues. It's a big internet out there, there's lots of places to say your piece - people should just get over it.

While obviously I strongly disagree with the opinions of yourself and others on many topics, and have exactly zero problem telling you so, I also should say that this is a very well-designed and constructed forum, with what I consider to be a permissive yet sensible moderation policy. Thank you for allowing me to post opinions that you strongly disagree with over the past year or more. I send warmest regards to the many folk here who I've exchanged friendly personal correspondence with over that period. In my estimation most of you play tough but fair, and I will leave you to make your own estimation of me. I guess if you're working from the formula that more reasonably I behave, the more perfectly evil I am there's not much I can say or do. Hopefully not everyone subscribes to that frankly odd notion. I've had to really challenge myself to keep up with y'all at times, but it's been worth it as far as I am concerned. Please feel free to contact me directly with any replies to threads you might want to wrap up at estigon2001@yahoo.co.nz.

Whoever is in charge of doing such things, please delete my account. As Joe Maurone might say, "shine on", and as we Popperians say, may you have the good luck to get good criticism.

regards
Daniel

Post 65

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel,

Thanks for the question, it's a good one. I, like you, am preparing to leave so I feel that this particular question may be pertinent.

No, I think I don't mean premises. I think I mean "what it means to do philosophy" and "what it means to support a philosophy"  If it were a matter of "premises", Fred and I would still be friends.

I don't see doing philosophy primarily in terms of debate. I am more than content to look at reality and draw conclusions. I don't see it as sharing premises and doing deduction from those premises and comparing results.

That's the short of it. I'll let others pursue it if they wish.

Tom


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To anyone who seriously doubted that I thought or I think that the following statement is true:

RAPE IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL.

Are we now clear?

I didn't know that it was a thought crime to illuminate the ideas of others.  I was trying to give Andrew Bissell's question a charitable interpretation (not that I succeeded) and trying to explain what Andrew's friend most likely meant.  It's one thing to be misinterpreted, but it's another thing to see the misinterpretation get used as support for a witchhunt.  I'm still fairly surprised that people are taking Linz's post seriously, but I guess that there will be no end to this kind of stuff.  Even in my interpretation of what Bissell's friend could have meant, I never tacitly or explicitly endorsed this particular consequentialist view of ethics because I think that certain acts are necessarily bound up with certain consequences and are therefore inherently bad/evil.  Moreover, I don't thinks that ethics can be reduced to this or that formula.

Daniel,

I guess your post will now be interpreted as a threat to leave and used as an excuse to moderate you.  That is what passes for fair use/interpretation these days.  However, you are right: Linz's request is unambiguous.  I guess we must play the tune of the piper.

Cheers,

Laj.


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So let's see if I get this right. First they say Lindsay said that Laj endorses rape, an outright lie but necessary to deflect against the actual criticism. Then they say that Lindsay accuses them of being "too reasonable", when he accused them of hiding their anti-reason behind a "semblance of sweet reason". Then they pulled out the "I'm a poor victim" bit, counting on altruism to get people to rally behind them, regardless of merit. Then they said Laj didn't mean what he said, and was just giving a possible explanation for someone else's view. Yes, clarity and the truth are obviously the goals. I quote Lindsay's article:

"Under the guise of 'critical thinking,' they commit to nothing".

For instance, saying they don't actually mean it, and are just trying to illuminate the ideas of others. It's not their opinion! You can't corner them into making actual statements! "I never said that" is their final defense. They never say anything. They only wish to negate.

And finally when cornered on their pomo ways, they admit that they don't actually endorse rape. Who said you did? Even this admission is just an attempt to obscure. This was never about whether you endorse rape. That was Daniel's first attempt at obscuring the issue. Continuing with that theme doesn't add to its credence.

Daniel, if we wanted to ban you, we would do it. That's just another distraction. Personally, I'd be happy if you left. So consider that an invitation.



Post 68

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 10/07, 12:24pm)


Post 69

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 10/07, 12:24pm)


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Perigo and Mr. Rowlands:

It would be helpful to me, and most likely to other posters here, to get some clarification concerning the house rules at SOLO.

You have both strongly encouraged Daniel Barnes and Abolaji Ogunshola to depart from this board.

Mr. Perigo has further declared that
decent people like Bill Dwyer and Robert Campbell are being seduced into engaging the pusballs. I guess the decent Dwyers of this world haven't been around SOLO long enough to know what unutterable scum these creatures are.

I've been around SOLO for just a few months. Long enough to recognize that the forums here are orderly and well run, that nearly everyone posts under his or her real name, and that trolling is kept to a minimum. I've found all of this a significant relief from some other message boards I know, where trolling is remorseless and relentless.

What I haven't noticed, during my stay here, is that either Barnes or Ogunshola (they have participated on many threads on which I have been active, and I have had some sharp disagreements with them) is "unutterable scum."

Nor have I noticed that either of them is a pomo. Postmodernism will never be the world's crispest concept, but from a philosophical standpoint the followers of Popper and Dennett and Flanagan simply do not belong in the same camp as the followers of Fish, Foucault, Lyotard, and Derrida. If I am going to criticize Dennett, for instance, I will be well advised not to mix him up with Derrida. Their evaluations of science are within a degree or two of diametrically opposed. Nor do they exactly concur about the relationship between language and reality.

Which brings us to the house rules...

Is SOLO (or has it become) a forum only for professed Objectivists? (I am a non-Objectivist, meaning that I accept the notion that Ayn Rand was the only Objectivist, but also meaning that I am critical of some of Rand's ideas.)

Does SOLO allow non-Objectivists, but only if they refrain from excessive criticism of Rand?

Does SOLO allow both professed Objectivists and non-Objectivists, so long as they do not criticize Rand excessively or engage in relatively civil exchanges with those deemed excessively critical of Rand?

Does SOLO allow both professed Objectivists and non-Objectivists, critical of Rand or not, so long as they do not criticize the opinions of Mr. Perigo and Mr. Rowlands?

Or, if none of these approximate descriptions is correct, what is a more accurate one?

Having been admonished that I am aiding and abetting something awful, I would like to know how close I am to being found in violation of the house rules myself. Other posters might also benefit from knowing where the line is that they should not cross. Then, at least, they won't be surprised when informed that they have crossed it.

Robert Campbell














Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As more and more pusballs leave, SOLO is becoming a cleaner place. I too appreciate the pure mountain air. I always turn to SOLO for relief and clarity and Linz and Joe are continuing to provide it in ever greater measure. Many thanks to them!

--Brant


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 5:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert–non-Objectivists are free to come here & argue. But they are expected to do so in good faith, not as a self-indulgent exercise in ostentatious verbosity: pedantic nit-picking dressed up in pseudo-philosophical garb. Furthermore, they're expected to show some consideration for the fact that this is an Objectivist site, and there are many who would echo Joe Maurone's sentiment:

It's like being out in the world all day, faced with various forms of opposition which we're expected to "tolerate." Home is supposed to be sanctuary where one can be oneself without incrimination. Imagine coming home and having to defend your castle from within! I had a ex who wanted us to have two rooms in case his parents came to visit (he was not "out".) I told him forget it, I do not hide in my own home. It's got nothing to do with tribalism, it's about having a place where one can simply be with likeminded people without justification, no apologies.

So they should show some discretion as to when they charge in. The relativist pusballs' opinions on Objectivist "cultism" are completely worthless to me, for one, but I was eager for the Dwyer/Rowland/Campbell debate to proceed apace. Instead, it got commandeered by those two and became a waste of space. If they hadn't interpolated themselves into that one I might not have gotten mad & they'd still be jerking off over all manner of threads (maybe they are—I haven't checked closely, & they're not banned). But at that point they crossed a line that you're light years away from.

Is criticism of Rand allowed? Read the Credo! Read your own posts!

Is criticism of me allowed? Hell, there are intermittent orgies of Linz-bashing. You must have missed those.

Is criticism of Joe Rowlands allowed? If it's friendly & constructive, yes. But anyone who insults Joe, who funds this site, has me to deal with, & that's never pretty.

Linz






Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
House rules? As a self-admitted Saddamite, it goes without saying that I've had my skirmishes with Linz. Hell, I've even disagreed with Joe -- regarding the air-tightness of the US Constitution. Even so, I have not ever felt the weight of a burden that 'house rules' were about to lead me to excommunication.

I've been here a few years now. I've seen many minds -- some of them great -- come and go. I'd argue that I have never seen a mind leave unjustly (forceful banishment -- ARI-style). I have been impressed with the tolerance of dissent here -- and dissent is where the progress is found. If you're trying to find a forum equal to SOLOHQ, in tolerating dissenting opinions -- then you have my sympathies (as I suspect that your search will be long and arduous).

Yeah sure, the owners state an opinion of folks -- it is their right. Yeah sure, the owners pass judgment on what folks write -- again, it is their right. Even so, have you EVER seen a forum so open to dissent as this? I'm serious. Has anyone EVER been on an internet forum -- besides one called: "Each to his own, there is absolutely nothing that is right or wrong in this world!" -- that is so permissive of antagonistic opinion? I'm serious.

Folks could fault SOLOHQ for not being perfect. Folks could fault SOLOHQ for being "too cosmopolitan in what they allow." But folks can't fault SOLOHQ for being a refuse where rational minds associate and, sometimes, heatedly, discuss real, important issues of the day. Sometimes, heatedly, discuss 'timeless' fundamentals. Sometimes, heatedly, discuss personal crises. No one, anywhere, outperforms SOLOHQ -- in this regard.

Smell the coffee.

Ed

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

When there are specific issues, I have found Linz and Joe to be pretty clear about the rules. One such case was Barbara. They clearly stated that she could be discussed, but her off-line posts could not be presented through other posters, as they considered this indirect posting (and circumventing a moderator).

Several posters for some reason quoted e-mails they received from Barbara verbatim. That pissed Linz and Joe off. They were right, too. They had been very clear about this point - more than once.

I don't think anyone has defended Barbara as passionately as I have done since those rules were set. Many posts. Long posts. I did not quote anything that she wrote to me. But I did praise her to the skies (which I feel I did not do enough, yet) and openly and loudly disagreed with almost everybody when I saw fit. (But I did not gloss over her errors, either.) Do you know what the result was?

I was not thrown off Solo. On the contrary, Linz saluted me in public.

You were not around when some very long threads on epistemology were running. I can completely identify with the frustration Linz felt when he became highly interested in an issue that was being discussed by intelligent people (including you), then the issues he wanted to cover with them were swept aside while endless posts from the posters he complained about went on and on without going anywhere except to "not affirm anything at all."

That not only happened with me about epistemology, it happened every damn time epistemology was mentioned anywhere. In the end, I started whistling for them to come and went a bit ballistic. I had to so I could get to intelligent input from Objectivists.

After that, Fred Seddon had written an article on axioms where that happened (a subject where they especially liked to attack from an epistemological viewpoint), and he was finally left relatively in peace. Then Roger Bissell made some extremely interesting contributions there that I found thought provoking - deeply so. That only happened because he was not drowned out by an anti-Objectivism affirm-nothing chorus.

Anyway, that is the source of the present mayhem. I grant that it came a bit without warning, but it had been brewing for quite a while.

Also, I don't know why, but some people (including some of the posters under discussion) seem to get their jollies by baiting Linz. Not bashing him. Baiting him. Poking him with a short stick just to see him growl.

In Brazil, there is a saying about this. Birds who swallow stones know the size of their own assholes.

In your case, I see nothing in your demeanor that infringes anything at all around here. That goes for 99%+ of all posters. I love reading your posts and I do hope you will stick around. I have heard some people complain that they never know when they are going to be broadsided, so they post very little. As time goes on, hopefully they will see that these explosions are rare, albeit VERY LOUD. And in the vast majority of cases, they are not gratuitous.

My own position here is proof that no one needs to worry about being broadsided. Just follow the rules (which are very clear) and do not try to take over everybody's space, nor be gratuitously nasty. (Joe, for example, does not see eye-to-eye with me Objectivism-wise about addiction, yet he set me up as Psychology leader after our public disagreements. Ciro had been moderated, then became Food leader shortly after being taken off moderation. What better example of the positive Solo spirit towards dissent is there than that?)

btw - I do not speak for Solo, except in the capacity of leader of the Psychology interest group. And even there, my views are my own, not mainstream Solo. I am merely speaking as one who has understood the owners' rules and knows how to apply them.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/08, 12:23am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/08, 12:33am)


Post 75

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 2:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael wrote:

btw - I do not speak for Solo, except in the capacity of leader of the Psychology interest group. And even there, my views are my own, not mainstream Solo.

You got that right, MSK!! Hahahaha!

Thanks for the support here guys.

Here's one of the pusballs in his previous pseudonymous incarnation. Snide, supercilious dilettante:

http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0970_2.shtml#56


Post 76

Sunday, July 3, 2016 - 6:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Stephen Hicks tears the postmodernists a new one in Explaining Postmodernism.

 

This should be mandatory reading for any Objectivist.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.