Here I reply to your post #45.
In that post you performed ad hominem, which is not an argument.
You said I am willfully ignorant. That I short-circuit communication. That I am not approaching in a friendly manner "trying to learn more." And you finish with stating:
"And you wonder why people think you're a troll?"
You even left some of my questions unanswered (in example, in my post #38 of this same thread.)
I don't assume your ignorance, and logically assume that you chose to ignore me, and endorse that same conclusion that I am "a troll."
But there are strange things, contrary to the view that you could really think that I am a troll.
First, as some readers of this message certainly know, I am not new in this website. You can see in my personal profile information that I post here since at least September of the year 2004. If I am "a troll" how I could remain "undetected"?
Second, I could expect that label from patently close-minded people (which I won't mention here), but not from you, Mr. Rowlands, who never had an argument with me.
As always tried to behave in a good-mannered way, my deduction is that I came to be labeled as "a troll" when my ideas threatened the preconceived ideas of some people.
My conclusions are that you, Mr. Rowlands:
1) Think that I am threatening the explicit agenda of your website, which is promoting the Objectivist philosophy.
The emotion of fear is very powerful, and it can move people to do incorrect things:
"Our emotions respond to the most salient piece of information available to us at the time. If one of this pieces is particularly evocative, it will affect our emotions more than information that may be more significant, but less passion arousing."
(Tal Ben Shahar, in: "A Clash of Values. The Struggle for Universal Freedom.")
2) As a consequence, you decide to ignore my post #38, to look to me over the shoulder, and willfully embrace the canard that I am a troll as a way to avoid having rational discussion with me (and other dissenters).
Of course, my interpretation can be wrong, but I wanted to post it for the sake of transparence.
Of course, one thing is disagreement, another is personal incompatibility with some posters, and another one to have personal incompatibility with the owner of this website.
At a personal level: initially a Christian Catholic, I had an Atheistic period of time --including an Objectivist one--, until now, when I am persuaded that Judaism is worth exploring more and more. I am getting increasingly amazed with this fully rational, and at the same time fully spiritual, way of life.
I felt the need to combat Objectivism because I am already persuaded that it is wrong, but has enough valid elements to be a good "training place" to check my arguments and views, as well as the Jewish insights I am leaning with other intelligent (though I think misguided) people here on RoR.
I always try to respect private property and its related rules of netiquette. That's why I have decided to end my posting in this website.
"Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence." -- Aristotle
My pursuit is truth, because that pursuit is the ultimate source of happiness.
I remain open to all sound arguments and to change my mind. Interestingly, the more I debate with Objectivists and others, the more I find that my decision to leave Objectivism was the correct one.
My best wishes to you, Mr. Rowlands, and to all RoRers,
(Edited by Joel Català on 6/26, 12:27pm)
(Edited by Joel Català on 6/27, 1:16am)