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 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oy! I neither beatified Jeanine nor even agreed with her very often on those few occasions I read her posts, to the extent that I could figure out what she was saying. I'm not seeking to beatify her now. Nor am I lumping *all* her critics in together. I just noted the allegiance of her main ones. But agreement with Objectivism is not a prerequisite for posting here. Dissenters are a very useful foil. I always had the impression she argued in good faith, unlike the clever-dick hair-splitters I truly despise. I also thought she could be won over (though I was by no means willing to invest the effort myself). Perhaps I was wrong about that. But there was no call for the abuse to which she was exposed. That was not directed at her arguments, but at the very core of her being. It was a deliberate attempt to say the most hurtful thing possible for the sheer sake of hurting her, over & over. It was a sordid, sorry episode.

Post 61

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 5:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

OF COURSE the application of a standard depends upon context.

Where we differ is that your standards regarding the sexual activity of your children are more permissive than mine.  So let me congratulate you.  If you can prepare your children for that sort of adult responsibility in thirteen years or so, you are a more effective parent than me.  I know it's going to take me and my wife at least eighteen years with each of our kids to accomplish the same result, and even then I'll have some doubts.  So don't judge me too harshly if I must be more restrictive with my children because of my inferior acumen in raising them.

Pukszta


Post 62

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perigo,

Pull your head out of your ass.

What tripe you spew, "But there was no call for the abuse to which she was exposed. That was not directed at her arguments, but at the very core of her being. It was a deliberate attempt to say the most hurtful thing possible for the sheer sake of hurting her, over & over."

Jeanine had no reservation in doing the same.  I never insulted the woman, but she had nothing but the most vile hopes for my demise simply because I suggested that Objectivism does not sanction sex with children.  She was a sexual deviant who had nothing but murderous contempt for any standard regarding sexuality.  While that curse didn't prompt me to attack her personally (actually I complimented her on how charmingly worded it was), I can see how some here who have been suffering her longer than me finally felt compelled to come to the defense of Objectivist principles.

You, I do not hesistate to take to task.  You have put yourself out as the leader of a prominent Objectivist forum.  You have a moral responsibility to illuminate what is true about Objectivism, not to provide shelter for every fool who spits in the eye of the Bible-thumpers and prudes.  It would be one thing if you were trying enforce a minimum standard of courtesy here, but I've read enough of your stuff to know you are no angel in that regard.

So what I see is you rushing to the defense of a troll at the expense of those who are here because of a genuine love for Objectivism and the good life that can be found in its principles.

Pukszta


Post 63

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand, unfortunately, was always quick to criticize those who didn’t “get it all.” She overdid it! Her approach seemed to convey that any "crack in the damn" would doom the whole philosophical revolution.

 

 

Jason, have you read Letters of Ayn Rand?  Anyone who does will see that Rand, in fact, went to great lengths to "win over" those who didn't "get it all". 

I see this sort of criticism of Rand frequently, but her Letters show her to be a person of great benevolence, patience and tolerance in dealing with those who disagreed. 



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rooster Puke,

I think you are crossing a line here.

When Jeanine attacked you on the Adam's article thread, I was the first to come to your defence (albeit very mildly) and to question her judgement. However, reading more of your recent posts, I can't hep but wondering may be there was some merit in Jeanine assertions - although I'd be more than glad if I am proving wrong.

There was only one other person on this board who had "suffered" a similar attack from Jeanine, and that was Orion Reasoner. I'd have to give it to her that she sure could smell a bigot from miles away.

I am alerted by your use of language such as "love of Objectivism" and "defender of Objectivism" in a context strikingly similar to that of "love of the Christ" or "defender of the Church of Christ/Objectivism". Such altitude would really be the undoing of the philosophy of Objectivism.


Post 65

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am alerted by your use of language such as "love of Objectivism" and "defender of Objectivism" in a context strikingly similar to that of "love of the Christ" or "defender of the Church of Christ/Objectivism". Such altitude would really be the undoing of the philosophy of Objectivism.
Not sure it has really undone Christianity... ;-)

However, I'm not sure your analogy holds.  I don't think that Rooster is a faith-based Objectivist based on what I have read so far.


Post 66

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lindsay, Bravo!

Rooster Puke,

"Perigo,

Pull your head out of your ass."

Well put, cogent. Objectivism needs more of this kind of representation.

..."(actually I complimented her on how charmingly worded it was)"

dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING

Mike Erickson


Post 67

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

You are mistaking 1930s-1940s Rand with 60s-70s Rand. Two different people. Letters itself contains enough evidence to show that.

Alec


Post 68

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rooster,

Bringing young people up to be responsible persons in 12 years is NOT a challenge beyond the abilities of ordinary parents. Parents in my own ancestral culture have been doing it for thousands of years, and you can judge their success by the results. Haim Ginott has written several books on parenting, in which he draws on the principles of the same tradition. I don't know of a single family, of ANY cultural background, that was not able to use the practices described in Ginott's work with the same success. Why assume that you can't?

Post 69

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not sure it has really undone Christianity... ;-)
Next, I guess I wasn't accurate in that statement. It's just that that kind of language sounds very "un-Objectivist" to me. I think Objectivism values individuals who think for themselves with reason, not individuals who "genuinely love" the philosophy.

What do you mean by "faith-based Objectivist"?   Do you mean Christian-Objectivist? or person who subscribe Objectivism as his faith?  I am sure Rooster is not the former, but I am not sure about the later...

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/24, 3:18pm)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rooster, I wonder if you think attacking Lindsay proves something about yourself.  Maybe that you're an independent thinker?  Maybe that you're a tough guy?  Or maybe your feelings were so hurt from Jeanine's attacks that you're just taking it out on Lindsay for suggesting she was mistreated?

Your first insulting post was bad enough.  Lindsay's dedicated his life to Objectivism and liberty, and has accomplished a huge amount, including this organization.  And you have the audacity/ignorance to suggest he's an enemy of Objectivism.  Just because your feelings are hurt.  Where is your list of accomplishments?  Where is the proof of your dedication over the years.  Do you really think you can elevate yourself by attacking someone who's better than you?  Well, you're wrong.  You've only lowered yourself.

And for your information, Lindsay did not attack George for putting Jeanine in her place.  I would think it was obvious for an Objectivist.

George could have attacked her for her ideas, or her passion without reason, or her being rude, or any number of other things.  But his attacks consisted of calling her a "him".  What was the point?  To hurt her.  But why would that hurt?  If she really is a woman stuck in a man's body, what's there to be ashamed of?  And yet the attack assumed it was something to be ashamed of.  And that implies she's sick and wrong.  Not her actions, her career, or her beliefs.  Her identity is fundamentally wrong.  As Lindsay said, it was directed "at the very core of her being".  What she does and what decisions she makes wasn't what was being attacked.  Her very being was under attack.

Now how is this an Objectivist attack?  I asked this because you seem to think Lindsay is attacking a "defender of Objectivism" from your first post.  Or are you saying that if someone seems to believe in Objectivism, you should take their side blindly over a hedonist any day, ignoring when they act unjustly?  Or maybe you're saying that you agree with George's attacks?  Lindsay said George was wrong for using these kind of "attacks", which are meant to be horribly rude, and have no merit to them at all (most insults have some merit because you're attacking flaws...but not when you attack virtues or unchosen attributes).  You're jumping in is based on an attempt to white-wash George's attacks, when there's nothing wrong with saying that both camps were wrong.


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 3:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rooster,

Your assertion that Jeanine was a "troll" is false. One of the contextually essential attributes of a troll is the concealment of its intentions. If someone comes to a newsgroup and poses as something he isn't, he may qualify. For example, if someone with a hundred articles on the Web pretends to be a newbie with a blank-slate mind, or an enemy propagandist pretends to be a fellow-traveller, or an intrinsicist or subjectivist or socialist or fascist or conservative pretends to be a Randian arguing for a "more genuine Objectivism" that better accords with his actual ideology, then he is, in all likelihood, a troll.

Jeanine wrote many things that I disagree with, but I found myself in productive dialogue about our disagreements, because she was totally honest and open about our differences. Lidsay is absolutely right in making SOLO a forum for dialogue with everyone who engages Objectivism openly and honestly, even a pagan subjectivist like Jeanine, because dialectic is the forge in which knowledge is tempered for precision and strength. Hell: if a Jesuit came here, identified himself as such, and participated in Solo with respect for Rand's ideas as well as his own, then I (and I think Linz) would find his participation welcome and useful. Irritating, as Jeanine was to many here, but welcome and useful just the same.

When dealing with a troll, a rational discussant's objective is to rip off his mask and expose his true face. In most cases, that is enough to drive him off, and good riddance. Jeanine came here without a mask, and those who lacked the intellect to confront her on the field of ideas, chose other means to be rid of her. Everyone here is worse off for that.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hopefully, this will be my last comment on this issue.

This incident began with my last paragraph of Post #15 on the Kant thread. Believe it or not, it was Luke that set me off and not JR. When Luke suggested how JR would be a ‘convincing’ person to write an article about ‘sex-work’. My comments were to Luke Setzer, and are as follows:

Later you (Luke) stated: My understanding is that Amy (Hayden) argued that sex is too important a value to market morally through prostitution and stripping. She did, and I agree. By the way Luther, I don't know you well enough to know how much of the seedier side of life you have been exposed to, but I can assure you that within the hierarchy of status among prostitutes, the term 'courtesan' would be reserved for a tiny (miniscule) minority of hookers. It would entail at an absolute minimum for the prostitute (male or female) to be drop-dead stone-cold gorgeous to get away with using the term 'courtesan' in the first place. Otherwise such a pretentious title for selling ones ass would cause howls of laughter and ridicule. The reality for the most part is, people that are far from attractive making ends meet by selling their ass every now and then. Most hookers do it for drug money, and still others to fulfill fantasies that have become obsessions (especially true of male hookers). Much of the crap you have been reading in this forum lately is a game of mind fuck being played under the assumption that the audience is naive enough to buy it.

As you can see, my initial remark was solely aimed at JRs veracity in the picture he had painted of himself, and the bullshit picture that he was trying to paint of prostitution.

In Post #16 JR ends with a PS that responds to my agreeing with Amy Hayden, he says: On 'sacred sex'; I hope I never meet Amy Hayden, because if I do I will not be able to restrain myself from slapping her until she bleeds. 

Then in Post #18 JR says to me, “, let me identify reality as I see it and name you an ignorant, prejudiced bigot, who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about concerning prostitution,…. And …As for you, well, frankly, your philosophy deserves you.  You show the raw nature of the bourgeois ethic well and better than I ever could.”

At which point I thought to myself, - fuck this ugly little bastard, from now on it’s cold and blunt.

My next post #21 was my first “Mister Ring” reference and was my response as to why I did not believe his ‘courtesan’ drivel, it can be summed up with this statement I made, “I do not believe you are good-looking enough to be a high class prostitute that can play pretense games with words like courtesan. I think you can only sell that on the web, when it comes to selling ass I would say you would be K- Mart and not even Macy's.”

Post 23 summed up my entire attitude towards JR, it reads: “Luke, I agree. I could care less about the pretentious claptrap that Mr. Ring likes to comment on. What hit my nerve, was the fact that Mr. Ring consistently bashes Objectivism, and sings the praises of hedonism, extreme leftist politics, and new age theism. For the most part he has gotten a pass by everyone (including myself), because he bashes politely and with a nice play on words from time to time. But I have grown tired of his Objectivism pounding, and his preaching hedonistic nonsense. I have also grown tired of his having to remind us in everyone of his fucking post that he is a high class prostitute, with a tone of, "isn't that just the cutest thing". I don't buy that crap for a second. Nor is his selling of ass a particular virtue in my code of values. He can sell it all he wants, but it's past time to shut the fuck up about it. Besides, the amount of time he spends on this board and his 'war and peace' length post, sure as hell indicates a lack of buyers. Luke, had you or I made some of the same statements about Objectivism (and objectivist) that Mr. Ring has, we would have been challenged right away and with great 'bluntness'. Oh well, I just thought it was time that the so-called 'courtesan' be called on his nonsense.

That’s it, no more no less. After that all my post were responses to people questioning my rationale. They were not directed to JR personally, because in a previous post he had quit the forum. All of the melodramatic descriptions of JRs innocent, unprovoked mauling at my hands are overstated. I ask the readers to go back and read the exchanges chronologically, and judge for themselves.

I will say it again; the hand ringing mourning over JR is astonishing in light of his statements on this forum (his actual statements, not our psycho-analytical projections of what we divine his statements really meant).

For most of you, your reactions to my ‘tone and style’ are ones that I can understand; you feel a genuine compassion towards another, I respect that. And in that sense, I do regret a manner of exchange whose abrasiveness bothered many.

Others however are being very disingenuous with their feigned concern, and affected righteous indignation. Your duplicitous motives are not hard to discern.

Adam Reed says in his last post, “Jeanine came here without a mask…”

Are you fucking kidding me!? Everything about JR was one endless series of masks. One pile of bullshit, piled upon another.

Here is my bottom line regarding this little creep: I do not buy any of his bullshit. None, nada, zilch, zero.

I don’t buy his hedonism, paganism, pacifism, ect.., nor do I buy into his transgender courtesan crap. Based on his appearance and his statements, the overwhelming probability is that he’s just another part-time gay hooker playing the night scene in San Fran. He’s about as genuine as the same types that are seen doing interviews on Jerry Springer and Montel Williams.

So my response to him can be summed up in four words, “Bullshit, you’re a fraud”. You cannot separate his ideas from the persona of JR the courtesan; he intertwined them in his every post. He ran away not because someone struck at the “very core” of his “sensitive soul”. He ran away because someone finally exposed his persona as a fraud, and called him on his nutty ideas. I think I found a bride for Stoly.  

Now you either buy into JRs bullshit, or you don’t. For those that don’t know it, I live in Florida. So those of you that do buy into the “hooker with a heart of gold” – please give me a call – I got some swampland to sell you.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/25, 2:45pm)


Post 73

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote, "those who lacked the intellect to confront her on the field of ideas, chose other means to be rid of her." Thank you, George, for providing the QED.

Post 74

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

The 3 acres you're looking to buy are $24,000. an acre. Trust me it's an absolute steal! You'll love the hills and mountains that dot the countryside.

George


Post 75

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George wrote:
This incident began with my last paragraph of Post #15 on the Kant thread. Believe it or not, it was Luke that set me off and not JR when Luke suggested how JR would be a ‘convincing’ person to write an article about ‘sex-work’.
Had I known my somewhat naive remarks would create such a topic-skewing firestorm, I would not have made them.  I admit, in retrospect, that I should have known better.  So I hope George will still at some point join us for a SOLO Florida event when he happens to be in town.

To the rest of you, I apologize for the off-topic question that threw the Kant thread into disarray.


Luke Setzer


Post 76

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 10:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh no Luke, I did not mean that you literally set me off.

There is absolutely nothing for you to apologize about.

George

PS: send me some info by PM or email, as to upcoming events.


Post 77

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 11:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,
You are the least guilty party here. This episode was inevitable judging by how things were going at the time. You have shown integrity, dignity and a desire to understand all the time. I have the highest respect for this Deep-South Bible-Belt bred red neck!.

George,
I think your frustration maybe displaced. You thought people here may be taken in by Jeanine courtesan facade and you needed to expose her. But perhaps the fact is that it is just not that of a big deal to some of here (including me) whether she is a self-claimed Bible-school teacher Objectivist, or transgender courtesan or the lowest of lower third rate guy hooker. Can you accept that? You are welcome to aim your ammo on us and debate whether and how these different people should be treated differently on this forum.

Oh, I agree Jeanine attacked you ferociously first. But I can't honestly say that it was without provoking.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/25, 11:19am)


Post 78

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Much of the crap you have been reading in this forum lately is a game of mind fuck being played under the assumption that the audience is naive enough to buy it.
Hmmm...

As you can see, my initial remark was solely aimed at JRs veracity in the picture he had painted of himself, and the bullshit picture that he had painted of prostitution.
He he he.  Even I was fooled... yeah right.


Post 79

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What do you mean by "faith-based Objectivist"?   Do you mean Christian-Objectivist? or person who subscribe Objectivism as his faith?  I am sure Rooster is not the former, but I am not sure about the later...
No Objectivist considers Objectivism a matter of faith (though some people might argue that point).  But I think that Objectivism is a personal philosophy for many people. 
Rooster can hold on to Objectivism as his personal philosophy ( I think he clearly does) and have strong reasons for doing so which are rational.  I wouldn't consider that "faith", thought I have my personal disagreements with Objectivism here and there that would lead me to consider certainty about the veracity of the Objectivist position on those issues to be a matter of faith. 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.