RoR: Forum

Of course you don't have to honor someone in death whom you did not honor in life. But there are situations in which you then just have to keep your mouth shut, for example when that person belonged to a certain community in which people did like him and admired him:
But not everyone did like and admire him.
it is just bad manners to denigrate him within that community on the occasion of his death . . .

What I'm asking is: why is it bad manners to denigrate him on the occasion of his death, if it is not bad manners to denigrate him while he was still alive?

I find it amazing that such common decency has to be pointed out. While he still participated on the forum you've had every opportunity to tell him what you thought of him, now it is too late, such denigration can only hurt people who thought highly of him. And if you can't resist the urge, then do it elsewhere, but not on the forum where he had his friends.

So your argument is that such criticism hurts his friends and admirers and should be avoided for that reason. But wouldn't the same argument apply to criticizing him while he was still alive, if doing so was offensive to his friends, which it probably was? -- unless you want to argue that it's worse on the occasion of his death, in which case, we're simply arguing about a matter of degree.

Besides, your attacks on Rand and those who support her are offensive to me and to others on this forum who like and admire her, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?! Suppose I were to tell you the same thing, viz.: If you can't resist the urge to put down Rand and Objectivism, then do it elsewhere, but not on a forum of her friends and supporters. What would you say? Probably something like, "Well, that's too bad, because I have every right to express my views, even if they are offensive to the other people on this forum."

Apparently, Nathan didn't think all that highly of Rand and Objectivism either, and didn't neglect to say so on a forum devoted to HER ideas. But we're not supposed to criticize him for attacking HER, because the people who thought highly of HIM would be hurt by it!

- Bill

Post 61

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:17pm

Oh, sorry to disappoint, Luke. I�m not going to write anything for you. Just repost your McDonald�s article.

Post 62

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:26pm

Ciro,
Ever heard of Elizabeth I? Catherine the Great? Or Margaret Thatcher?

Post 63

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:27pm

...Golda Meir...

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:28pm

Bill,

This is getting bizarre. Nathan was not evil, not Castro. This announcement, this thread, is not your academic paper for a class. Cal never denigrated her on the occasion of her death.

Post 65

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 4:28pm

And it is not simply �a matter of degree.� In life, you treat a man as he has earned. Your target is he and his ideas�pain to his admirers is incidental. When you do it on the occasion of his death (not just after his death, Bill, but the occasion of death) you are targeting his mourners at their most vulnerable. The first is justice, the second, sadism. Luke cannot claim that his target was still Nathan and his ideas, because he already did that while he was alive. So please stop with the Rand red-herring. I know you can do math: July 24 (Luke�s post) minus July 23 (date of the announcement) = the occasion. 2006 minus 1982 = not the occasion.

I am very disappointed. Luke�s show was perfectly characteristic while yours is not.

Post 66

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:04pm

Ciro,
Ever heard of Elizabeth I? Catherine the Great? Or Margaret Thatcher?

Yes I do, Hung, but they weren't presidents of America, :-))

Post 67

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:25pm

When a clash arises on a public discussion forum, the Drama Queen grandstands how much she has enjoyed the company of the people she likes on the list, how her integrity demands that she now part company, and how she might consider staying if the list owner caves to her demands. The Ice Queen quietly leaves the list and creates her own forum.

LMAO

Post 68

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:48pm

Ciro, I appreciate your enjoyment of the passage you quoted from my article "Drama Queen versus Ice Queen," but I feel puzzled about why you quoted it here.

Could you please elaborate?

Post 69

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:40pm

Well, after you wrote that you could have been accused of "OBJECTIVISM RAGE"
And, seeing your posts on another forum about NASA, and watching how you have been criticized here, I felt that your article was just too funny .
OK?
(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/28, 6:49pm)

Post 70

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:42pm

Bill,

This is getting bizarre. Nathan was not evil, not Castro. This announcement, this thread, is not your academic paper for a class. Cal never denigrated her on the occasion of her death.

I realize that, Jon. He is denigrating her many years thereafter. The parallel I was making was not that he was denigrating Rand on the occasion of her death, but simply that he was denigrating her on an OBJECTIVIST FORUM, and offending many of her admirers in the process. Remember, Cal's argument was that Luke's denigrating Nathan on the occasion of his death was bad manners BECAUSE it was offensive to Nathan's admirers on THEIR(??) forum. Well, in that case, anything that is offensive to Rand's admirers on THEIR forum must also be bad manners, right? If you can find a flaw in my argument, please feel free to point it out.

Let's not forget that RoR is a forum for Rand's ideas, not Nathan's. Nathan happened to post here and had a few admirers, but like Cal's, his posts were evidently not supportive of Rand or Objectivism. So, if someone, like Luke, found Nathan highly offensive, which apparently he did, then why should he sit back while others eulogize someone of whom he strongly disapproved?

If I felt the way Luke did, and a eulogy were given to this guy on an Objectivist forum, I'd find it revolting and wouldn't hesitate to voice my disapproval. If someone doesn't deserve to be praised while he is alive, he doesn't deserve it after he's dead. I've always found the standard eulogies given to "the dearly departed" to be pretentious and contrived. People who didn't have good word to say about someone while he was alive are scrambling to say something wonderful about him after he died. In this regard, I respect Luke's integrity. I've always liked the fact that he's not afraid to voice an unpopular opinion, only to receive the hoots and hollers of others on the list as they pile on one after the other to condemn him.

Of course, if no eulogy were posted, I would avoid saying anything, as I'm sure Luke would as well.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/28, 6:46pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/28, 6:47pm)

Post 71

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:54pm

You nailed it, Bill. That�s the issue.

Is someone who is �not supportive of Rand or Objectivism� on HER forum therefore �highly offensive� and �revolting�? You and Luke seem to think it follows, and therefore anyone who cares to may proceed to piss on his death announcement.

Nice knowing you.

Post 72

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:20am

Bill being a determinist (unlike Nathan,) she would have spat in his face and tossed him from �her forum� in five minutes. Consider yourself revolting, Bill!

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/29, 12:45am)

Post 73

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 3:17am

Bill, thank you for articulating clearly in your own words the appropriateness of my actions. I appreciate the empathy and support.

Ciro, I posted comments on SOLOP about NASA because I work for NASA and appreciated the mention of the Space Shuttle "Return to Flight," not because I have any intentions of leaving RoR. As for my rage, I certainly support the measured expression of anger in proportion to values violations. All human emotions can serve the life of the feeler when properly programmed with reason. I think you read more into that passage than rationally warranted.

As for my other critics, I have firmly concluded that you simply do not "get" Objectivism. The philosophy most assuredly demands the passage of moral judgment on people, alive or dead, and the defense of true ideas against false ones. It also demands the defense of private property rights against those who would attack them, including the rights of forum owners. The virtue of Benevolence must always remain the servant of the cardinal virtues and never become their master.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/29, 3:23am)

Post 74

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 4:30am

I think it's time for everyone to lighten up. Let's put the FUN back in FUNerals! :)

Insensitive Bob

Post 75

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:22am

Thanks Bob

Luke needed that laugh.

Leaving the conversation about Nathan Hawking with so many negative notes would have been so anti-life; not only for Luke, but for all of us. So aesthetically unromantic, too. Luke's information is logically correct; but doesn't nourish the soul.

Is this the "je ne sais quoi" so many claim is missing from Objectivism?

I hope Luke, that you can do what Ayn Rand didn't: inject a healthy dose of lighthearted humour into your book. If Nathan Hawking's time on SOLO is the catalyst for having this happen; he is worth being forgiven, for a few bad premises.

Sharon

Post 76

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:42am

I had to do a Google search on that term, Sharon:

http://www2.bartleby.com/61/99/J0029900.html

A "something missing that I cannot quite describe" element, eh? Interesting!

I like the dark and acid wit of Jeff Wayne, a comedian who credits some of his influence from Ayn Rand:

http://www.uproarcomedycd.com/catalog/jeffwayne.htm

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/29, 9:43am)

Post 77

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 10:11am

�The philosophy most assuredly demands the passage of moral judgment on people, alive or dead, and the defense of true ideas against false ones. It also demands the defense of private property rights against those who would attack them, including the rights of forum owners.�

By your logic, you must now go to SoloPassion and defend Linz� property rights�or didn�t you notice that his property rights were attacked by Aaron with a death notice there, as well. Get to it. The philosophy demands it!

Edit:
For those who may not follow�Nathan never posted to Joe Rowlands� Rebirth of Reason. He posted to Joe and Linz� SoloHQ. Luke says his very presence was an attack on �the rights of forum owners,� which owners would be: Joe and Linz.

Luke also uses Linz� SoloPassion, posting there just yesterday. Aaron posted there the very same eulogizing death announcement that he posted here.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/29, 10:50am)

Post 78

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 11:02am

Is someone who is �not supportive of Rand or Objectivism� on HER forum therefore �highly offensive� and �revolting�?
He can be. But I am not saying that that was my impression of Nathan, since I did not know him well enough to draw that conclusion. My point was only that if it was Luke's opinion, then I can understand his response and do not see it as inappropriate in the way that other people seem to.
You and Luke seem to think it follows, and therefore anyone who cares to may proceed to piss on his death announcement.

What I'm saying is that if Luke thought Nathan didn't deserve a eulogy on an Objectivist forum, then he has a right to say so. If you disagree -- if you thought Nathan was a standup guy -- fine; you have a right to your opinion, but don't accuse Luke of an impropriety for expressing his.

Bill being a determinist (unlike Nathan,) she would have spat in his face and tossed him from �her forum� in five minutes. Consider yourself revolting, Bill!

That's funny, Jon!!! I gotta give you a sanction for that! Rand was difficult to fathom. Would she find me revolting on account of my determinism? I doubt it, although there are probably some people on this forum who do, albeit for other reasons, like the resident anti-Objectivists, whose presence I don't begrudge, by the way, although I also don't think that they (of all people) should begrudge someone like Luke from posting his objection to Nathan. An Objectivist forum that is open enough to allow them to offend admirers of Rand is certainly open enough to allow Luke to offend admirers of Nathan.

- Bill

Post 79

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 11:47am