Sarah Gets a Reading Lesson

In the anti-gouging thread, Sarah incisively spotted me in a contradiction - or does she need a reading lesson? Her original post to me is below. Mine follows in the next post.

Andy

Andy,

Just testing the waters. I saw what appeared to be an internal inconsistency among your posts and apparently I was right. Since you seem to be quite adept at not reading what I'm writing, I'll try to be clearer. Earlier you said that bad people can't use capitalism. When I asked you if capitalists were ever bad people, you said sure. Then, when I pressed, you switched back to capitalists good. Just so you don't think I'm making this up, here's the quotes:

Capitalism by its very nature cannot never be a method of criminals. [bad people can't use capitalism]

Sure, they are capitalists who are evil, but not because they are capitalists. [bad people can use capitalism]

By its nature, capitalism does not produce any evil. [bad people can't use capitalism]

Call it nitpicking if you like, but last I checked, agreeing with yourself is pretty high up there on the list of important things to do before you start arguing with others.

This was just a taste, of course; a glaringly obvious self-contradiction. Perhaps some day we'll really discuss something and I'll be able to verify more. Perhaps you don't have things as nailed down as you think?

Sarah

Post 1

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 5:32am

Sarah,

Call it nitpicking if you like, but last I checked, agreeing with yourself is pretty high up there on the list of important things to do before you start arguing with others.

No, I don't call it nitpicking. You're just plain wrong. You've taken my statements out of context and then incorrectly paraphrased them to create a contradiction. Let's take a look at your evidence ...

Capitalism by its very nature cannot never be a method of criminals. [bad people can't use capitalism]

Sure, they are capitalists who are evil, but not because they are capitalists. [bad people can use capitalism]

By its nature, capitalism does not produce any evil. [bad people can't use capitalism]

I don't even have to put these statements back in their context to show how you misread what I plainly said. Your paraphrase "Bad people can't use capitalism" is misleading. A correct paraphrase would be, "Bad people can't use capitalism to do evil." That is clearly the meaning of my statements.

This was just a taste, of course; a glaringly obvious self-contradiction. Perhaps some day we'll really discuss something and I'll be able to verify more.

I don't know about that, Sarah. I love discussing things with people who disagree with me. I don't have much time for people who just want to fence. Either you misread me or you manufactured a dispute in bad faith. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to suspect the latter, but I would sincerely like to believe it is the former. We'll see by your response or lack of it. If it is just a misunderstanding, my apologies for suspecting otherwise.

Andy

Post 2

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:10am

Andy:

As small point. When you say, "Capitalism by its very nature cannot never be a method of criminals." I think you mean, "Capitalism by its very nature cannot ever be a method of criminals."

Sam

Post 3

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:25am

"Bad people can't use capitalism to do evil."

As I said with Jason, I suspected and asked you if that was what you meant here and got no confirmation. Is it so terribly hard to stop and think about what others are asking before you post or do you only think when you have the chance to publicy deride someone?

Sarah

Post 4

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:36am

Starting insulting threads seems to be quite the thing these days.

Post 5

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:41am

Andy, I can't resist.

I love discussing things with people who disagree with me. I don't have much time for people who just want to fence.

LOLOLOLOL...

Feels good, don't it?

Michael

Post 6

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:45am

Please don't feed the thugs.

(Edited by katdaddy on 9/07, 11:05pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:04am

Andy,
I pointed out a reading error that you made here. You admitted that I was "probably" right here. So, before starting a thread on someone's inability to read other posts, perhaps you should get your own house in order.

Also, in this thread you said:

I love discussing things with people who disagree with me. I don't have much time for people who just want to fence. [Emphasis mine.]

This is one of your more disingenuous statements.

Post 8

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:15am

Sarah,

As I said with Jason, I suspected and asked you if that was what you meant here and got no confirmation.

I said I didn't understand what you were asking. When you elaborated, I responded with this thread showing that you had incorrectly paraphrased me. Even if your paraphrasing were correct, considering the length and nuance of my arguments against anti-gouging laws, you accomplished nothing more than a "gotchya", which is a silly game.

Whatever game you're playing, why bother? What good are you doing? You haven't challenged the substance of anything that I have written here. At best you would have informed me that I was capable of making a mistake. I already knew that, Sarah. For example, I made a mistake of thinking it was possible you hadn't engaged me in this discussion in bad faith.

You know what you're doing, Sarah. Either own up to it, or scat along with the rest of your Lilliputian comrades tying up this thread.

Andy

Post 9

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:17am

"Sarah Gets a Reading Lesson"

That title is malevolent as hell. Surely not benevolent. Its to an advantage to individuals who values their lives to be benevolent rather than malevolent. No?

Post 10

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:18am

As small point. When you say, "Capitalism by its very nature cannot never be a method of criminals." I think you mean, "Capitalism by its very nature cannot ever be a method of criminals."

You're right, Sam. That was a sloppy error on my part. Thanks for taking the time to call my attention to it.

Andy

Post 11

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:22am

Feels good, don't it?

Of course it does, Michael. I enjoy expressing myself with the written word, even when I must be adversarial. I've done an effective job of pointing out why Sarah is wrong. Why shouldn't that feel good?

Or do you think I should be upset, because people disagree with me, sometimes irrationally so?

Andy

Post 12

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:24am

Psychologizing against Sarah now, Andy?

Starting to get shaky.

Michael

Post 13

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:25am

My dear Kat,

Please don't feed the thugs.

This is how Adam initially responded to me, and now the two of us are as thick as thieves. So should I interpret this as a love note?

Andy

Post 14

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:34am

Glenn,

You getting things upside-down. I'm doing nothing more than defending myself against a petty charge of sloppy writing. I'm not making the accusations. As for this exchange ...

I wrote to Sarah:

I don't have much time for people who just want to fence.

You responded:

This is one of your more disingenuous statements.

I have joked around with people, Glenn, but I have not disagreed with anyone for the sake of disagreement. Give me one example of what you claim.

Andy

Post 15

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:44am

Dean,

That title is malevolent as hell. Surely not benevolent. Its to an advantage to individuals who values their lives to be benevolent rather than malevolent. No?

It may be malevolent to someone without a sense of humor, a common affliction among New Puritans. In fact, it is a lack of benevolence to have read into the title any ill intent on my part. This is especially so, because you should know better. I took the time and trouble to pleasantly discuss with you the basis of Objectivist morality over the past couple of days. You know from your own experience that I have no hostility towards a person because of disagreements here.

Andy

Post 16

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:58am

Andy, that's a bunch of bull. "In fact, it is a lack of benevolence to have read into the title any ill intent on my part." Sounds like someone preaching to his sanctuary full of drones that questioning his intentions is immoral.

Post 17

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:00am

Psychologizing against Sarah now, Andy?

Not really, Michael. Gleaning the plain purpose behind someone's statements is not psychologizing. Psychologizing involves assigning a cause in the absence of evidence for someone's behavior.

Linz's so-called friends were psychologizing him when they said alcoholism was the cause of his (increasingly understandable to me) outbursts against the reprobates that make appearances in his forum. You psychologized me when you assigned the source of my disagreements with you about Branden to a child-like mentality or a robotic adherence to ARI.

That's the problem with psychologizing. You are not only drawing conclusions without supporting facts, but you are drawing conclusions about something that is very difficult to know even in the best of circumstances - the cause of a person's state of mind.

Maybe you now better understand why I think people are asses when they engage in psychologizing.

Andy

Post 18

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:09am

Dean,

Andy, that's a bunch of bull. "In fact, it is a lack of benevolence to have read into the title any ill intent on my part." Sounds like someone preaching to his sanctuary full of drones that questioning his intentions is immoral.

You didn't question my intentions. You stated in no uncertain terms that I was malevolent. You made this statement knowing from your own experience that I am not malevolent. As a consequence, I did not accuse you of immorality. I did say you were not exercising the virtue of benevolence.

That's a big difference. Virtue is virtuous because it is not required. Just as the absence of vice does not mean someone is good, the absence of virtue does not mean someone is bad. Nothing in Objectivist ethics demands that you act virtuously, only rationally.

But virtue is good for the soul, if I may sound like a preacher. Think about reading what I have written with a little benevolence. Doing so will give you an insight into what is transpiring here that should lighten your mood.

Andy

Post 19

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:22am