|Robert, you and I, we don't seem to get along very well. Perhaps you have taken me to be sarcastically disagreeing with you, and not just disagreeing with you (this is a problem with typed correspondence but, even if relevant here -- I would only be willing to take half the blame for it).|
To your comments about me (about who l am, or what I do, or what I stand for), which you've gathered from this short interaction with me, I would like to add something (I'm presuming that this is an instance where I would be allowed to speak up for myself -- instead of just taking the accusations that you are willing to shove up my ass). I would like to add that I do, admittedly, err on the rationalistic side of a perfect integration and implementation (of Objectivism -- into my life). I can tell if and when things are perfect (which is both a benefit and a curse), and I can tell that I've been imperfect, and even 'how much' I've been imperfect (how far I've missed the mark).
What you say of me misses the mark. In a knee-jerk reaction, you've accused me of knee-jerk reacting. Robert, one thing I don't have (or want) is control over you -- or your reactions to things in life. I don't want control of whether you are allowed to speak about something. I don't want control over whether you are allowed to carry a discussion wherever it leads. Note how this makes me, fundamentally, different from notable Randroids of which you spoke -- who disavow others and schism.
What I would like from you -- and I can only request it, I cannot force it on you -- is to weight any conclusions/judgments about me as a person (ie. moral judgments), more heavily than you would weight judgment of mere arguments that spring from my head. Trash my arguments first and, if successful, then -- and ONLY THEN -- trash me. The "successful" argument-trashing is an important stop-gap that allows for me to explain myself. You have here acted as if you had no interest in allowing me a chance to explain my behavior.
You may say that I merely did the same to you (and that I "did it" first!), but what was missed was my subtle wording -- complete with its own stop-gap for prevention of escalation in rancor:
I said ...
I don't see much room for any lengthy discussion
... which breaks down (under pressure from opposition) to ...
"I don't see" (I'm sharing MY view, not THE view)
"much room for any lengthy discussion" (which is specifically not: "NO room for ANY discussion")
To recap: I respectfully request that you -- in any future interactions with me -- weight moral judgments heavier than the judgments about the arguments/ideas.
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 10/02, 6:25pm)