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 5Page 6


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 120

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The phrase you suggest -- "prone to being misunderstood" strikes me as self-sacrificial (as if a businessman described himself as "prone to not being paid," he would thereby appear to blame himself for not having received payment). Would you mind if I used a less self-sacrificial wording? (e.g., "Others often misunderstand my messages")?
My advice is intended as just that, hopefully helpful advice. Use, discard, reword at your discretion. As to the sacrifical wording you see, I don't see it. I used that phrase because you possess a syndrome that apparently causes communication issues often originating from your side of the exchange, therefore you are prone to be misunderstood. It seems a minor and fairly irrelevant distinction though. 

/b/
Since the most frequent (and the strongest) complaints against my postings have come from Teresa, no suggestion -- however excellent -- can serve the purpose unless she approves it. (If I adopt your excellent counsel, and then Teresa finds it insufficient or otherwise improper or ineffective .. why, in that case I might as well not have bothered.)
I disagree. Teresa certainly has been the most vocal lately, but I'm pretty sure most of us have been thrown off in communication with you. I personally went through a period where I just tried to ignore all threads from you, on the sole basis that it seemed obvious that you were on the attack. However, that is irrelevant because you are not beholden to anyone here. If you decided to adopt advice, and it seemed to help you meet your own goals of posting by helping others understand you what would it matter if the most vocal person still had a problem. If it helped you be more confident in your communications and seemed generally worthwhile to you then thats an end in itself. You have no obligation to "satisfy" others by your efforts, only to attempt to meet your own goals via the best method you can discover or devise.

I don't recall refusing -- and I don't (yet) know how to search this forum for old posts -- so I'll clarify now:
Objectivism interests me, I agree with a lot of it (not all -- or not yet all), and those strike me as sufficient reasons to participate here.
Prehaps refusal is a bit strong. You never responded one way or the other, and the root of this issue was pretty clearly stated right there in the beginning. That your intent couldn't be read. The mention your interest in Objectivism is clearly listed in your bio. The issue has been that the consistent nature and tone of your posts has subtly indicated that debunking Objectivism interests you. I'm not saying thats true or not, that has been my impression and I suspect others might agree they thought they saw that too.

I don't want pity (I don't like the way it tastes). Re discrediting the pseudos -- I sought to know whether most Oists resembled them in certain significant and (to me) disturbing ways. (Experiences here have persuaded me that most of the Oists here do not resemble the pseudos I'd run afoul of.)

I didn't think so. If I did, we wouldn't be this far into the conversation. I'm just saying that some of your posts could be misconstrued to look like that.

Unfortunately, the only person I live with (my husband) has neither time nor inclination to read and correct material written on topics that do not vastly interest him. Even if he had the time and inclination, he too has Asperger's -- so anything I wrote that looked okay to me would, almost certainly, look okay to him too. (And I don't have the budget to justify hiring someone to come in every day and vet all my thread starters.)
Send them to me if you're worried about it. I would think someone that knows you really well would be potentially the worst person to do it, because they would know you well enough to fill in the gaps. Reading a thread every once in a while and returning a very general impression regarding intent of the poster really isn't in depth. Look how many people have already been doing it. I'm not naming names, but I'm sure I'm not the only one here that would be willing to take a second to return an email and say "This seems like an attack", "your intent is unclear", "did you intend it to sound like you believe X", etc.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 121

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for clarifying; I'll keep you in mind as someone willing to vet (and interested in vetting) messages of mine to help me avoid problems I don't want to cause.

So I owe you some clarification of my own: What looks like an "interest in debunking Objectivism," I'd describe as my interest in finding out exactly, what in Objectivism I can, and cannot, agree with (on the understanding that the amount and areas of my agreement -- so far -- may change as I learn more.)

When I encounter a lot of wonderful stuff (by Rand) -- and then among it all I occasionally encounter something that strikes me as, well, not so wonderful --
it seems reasonable, when that happens, to take the matter to people who KNOW Rand's philosophy -- rather than taking the matter to people who do not.

Therefore, I read several Oist fora and post on this one; I do not read or belong to, and do not intend to read or to belong to, any forum centered on anti-Oism: if such fora even exist.
(If I wanted to "debunk Objectivism" in some public forum, I would find -- or found -- an anti-Oist forum and do it there instead!)
(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 9/29, 5:27pm)


Post 122

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So I owe you some clarification of my own: What looks like an "interest in debunking Objectivism," I'd describe as my interest in finding out exactly, what in Objectivism I can, and cannot, agree with (on the understanding that the amount and areas of my agreement -- so far -- may change as I learn more.)
I personally don't see anything wrong with that. Where misconceptions occur is when all threads are in the vein of science articles that you think might conflict with Oist principles or some of the most easily twistable quotes available. If all anyone sees is the 10% you don't agree with or find seriously questionable, then that 10% becomes 100% for the person that doesn't know your intent.

When I encounter a lot of wonderful stuff (by Rand) -- and then among it all I occasionally encounter something that strikes me as, well, not so wonderful --
it seems reasonable, when that happens, to take the matter to people who KNOW Rand's philosophy -- rather than taking the matter to people who do not.
Its also reasonable just to kid around with people with roughly similar ideas or elaborate on principles mutually agreed upon. That sort of thing gives others more of a sense of where you're coming from. A more well rounded view of your personality and sense of life. It helps to flesh out that 90% with a community you're planning on interacting with long (ish) term.

Therefore, I read several Oist fora and post on this one; I do not read or belong to, and do not intend to read or to belong to, any forum centered on anti-Oism: if such fora even exist.
If I wanted to "debunk Objectivism" in some public forum, I would find -- or found -- an anti-Oist forum and do it there instead!)
I'm curious if you're familiar with the term "troll", as used online. It was mentioned earlier as an impression one might get from repeated negative or provocative posts, and nothing else. Just in case you aren't particularly familiar with the term, its a person who is intentionally causing strife or drama on a forum. This behavior is NOT for the purposes of learning anything or even debunking something they believe is wrong. The entire purpose is to cause problems. I'm sure that you see that a forum generally in agreement with one's ideas would be the WORST place to do that. It happens all the time, especially among forums where people are known to take things seriously. Oists are particularly juicy targets.


Post 123

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Ryan, for the explanations (on "troll" and other matters). Unfortunately, I don't do very well at just agreeing with people in a conversation (when they've already, said, and have said better, whatever I would agree with) -- I'll continue to work on this ...

Post 124

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that someone is confusing me with someone else here - probably Steve, I'm guessing...

Post 125

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post 115 Kate has me mixed up with someone else. I've never said anything about Rand being an 'aspy' and she attributes a statement I did make to Phil.

Post 126

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 11:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I mixed up some names. Let that teach me not to post immediately after distractions occur while I read ...

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 127

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Reality is.  Handicapped human beings exist.  Denying children the ability to see and understand that disabled/handicapped humans exist (and overcome) denies them a true view of reality, and the lesson that humans overcome there circumstances. 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6


User ID Password or create a free account.