RoR: Forum

This thread seems ripe for ANOTHER "dog-pile hijacking." So, what the hell, here goes ...

It really doesn't look too good, Bill.

From OPAR, pgs 202-205 (caps for italics):

"... if the choice to think or not controls all of a man's other choices and their products, including the emotions he feels and the actions he takes; then the individual is SOVEREIGN. His own cognitive faculty determines not only his conclusions, but also his character and life."

"Since he is responsible for what he thinks (or evades), he is responsible for all the psychological and existential consequences that follow therefrom."

"But a man does choose his emotions--ultimately. He does it by virtue of his ability to think, and if necessary to rethink an issue, rejecting an invalid idea at the root of some feeling and replacing it by a new conclusion."

"Many people, unable to explain their emotions, do experience themselves as puppets moved by loves and hates that come they know not whence."

"There is no dichotomy between will and nature or between will and reason. Reason IS will, and therefore the power of choice is the power that rules man, in regard both to body (action) and soul. Man is not only free, he is the product of his freedom--which means: of his intellect."

hmf!

Ed

Post 81

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 4:35pm

Bill,

�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.�

OK. Next stage now: Luke�s reasons for his opinions, so that we can judge whether his response was or was not inappropriate. Before he tells us his reasons, would you answer this please, Bill: Would you regard your determinism as reason sufficient to pee on your death announcement were such made on a site dedicated to her ideas? It�s clearly �unsupportive of Rand and Objectivism.� Would you consider his response, if it were aimed at you and based only on that, to be appropriate or a grotesque failure of benevolence?

Luke, will you share your reasons? I recall you said he hogged the forum. Also that he had purposes other than promoting Objectivism (supporting the claim that he attacked the property rights of Joe and Linz.) Anything else? I�ll help: I recall that he proposed another axiom, the Axiom of Order. I do not recall that he denied any existing axioms, however.

So let�s take this to the next level, please, Luke. You�ve made serious claims. It�s time to present to us the data that lead you to the conclusion that Nathan was a pure effrontery. Then Bill and the rest of us can judge for ourselves the rationality and depth of consideration you�ve given to this. You�ve stated that we don�t understand Objectivism or how it works in a scenario like this one, so educate us.

Post 82

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 5:19pm

WHAT DOES SHE MEAN?! -- determinists are "run by their emotions"??? WHY THAT... (ahem!)...got to control myself here. Calm down, Bill...just calm down. Remember, determinists are NOT run by their emotions, despite what Rand says (grips desk tensely, wipes sweat from brow, unclinches teeth, counts to 10). Whew, got past that one! You see, even determinists can exercise a little free will on occasion!

Btw, doesn't ARI have a twelve-step program for those of us still under the influence of antecedent causes? They don't? Well, they should have! Galt knows, we need it!

- Bill

Post 83

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 5:27pm

We had an extensive discussion of Nathan's hogging of the forums here over a year ago with his diversions from Objectivism. Here are some posts documenting these:

http://www.solohq.org/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1259_2.shtml#56

http://www.solohq.org/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1259_4.shtml#83

http://www.solohq.org/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1259_4.shtml#97

In my view, this evidence amounts to sufficient cause to protest eulogies of him here. Those who think otherwise can eulogize him.

Post 84

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:01pm

Interesting conversation. I think Bill asks some very good questions. Let me just highlight one:

Just to probe this a bit more: Suppose that while Nathan was still alive, someone posted an article eulogizing him and his accomplishments, a viewpoint to which one took strong exception. Would it be inappropriate to voice a dissenting opinion? And if not, then why is it any different if someone posts an article eulogizing him after he has died?

I can think of two reasons why it might be inappropriate to say something bad after a person dies.

The first is that the dead person is not around to defend himself. Waiting until someone can't defend themselves to attack/smear them is inappropriate because they might have been able to answer the attack if they were still alive. This case doesn't apply to Luke, of course, since he was quite willing to make his point before.

The second reason is that if someone attacks a person right after they die, the only benefit gained is to hurt those people who cared about him. If productivity matters, we have to ask what was actually accomplished. Timing does matter, and to time an attack like that is really aimed at hurting the feelings of others. That's the only thing gained by doing it then instead of later. So that would be a reason why attacking someone right after their death is inappropriate. But we have to be careful there. That argument hinges on the statement that there is nothing else achieved by the timing.

The problem is that some people may try to take advantage of the fact that it is typically inappropriate to say bad things right after a person dies. They choose that time to try to distort the record in a positive way because they think nobody will dare correct them. I think it's entirely appropriate to set the record straight in that case. Otherwise, the distorter of the record is using the virtue of the detractors against them. Any scenario where your virtue is used as a tool against you should be an immediate flag telling you that it's not longer a virtue.

And of course, there's the traditional view that the dead are sacred, and you should never insult them. Part of this is based on the mystical notion that they survive as spirits after death. Part of it is probably based on the rational guideline that a person can't defend themselves after death, so it's inappropriate to wait for then. But whatever the motivation, there's the clear view that it's "bad" to do it, without defining exactly how. So what happens is people believe they need to distort the record in terms of making it more positive. You need to look at the positives, and ignore the negatives.

Objectivity and honesty are discarded in terms of "being nice". It's the usual problem of people promoting a form of benevolence that's in direct opposition to rationality and self-interest. But if it's offensive to the people who care about someone when you say bad things after they're dead, isn't it also offensive to people that didn't like him when you say nice things? If the goal is to not offend anyone, people shouldn't make any statement about the person, except that they're dead. If they're going to making other statements, should those be driven by objectivity and honesty?

Again, it's appropriate to set the record straight. It doesn't matter if people are distorting it in an opportunistic way since they don't expect anyone to resist, or whether they're distorting it in order to "be nice". Both are inappropriate. Responding to that distortion is fine. But for the reasons stated above, it may be best to limit your response to the distortions, instead of going further.

I think one of the most important aspects of Objectivism is to not simply accept moral rules like this blindly because that's the way you were raised. You should question the premise, as Luke and Bill have done. Ask what benefits there are. Ask why it's in our self-interest. Look for the reasons behind it and evaluate those reasons. Objectivism is radical, and it should reject arguments from tradition or convention.

I support Luke and Bill for rejecting these unsupported rules and questioning the legitimacy of them. I think that is exactly in line with the Objectivist method of looking at the facts of reality to form your own conclusions.

One more point I'd like to make is that Jon's responses seem far more inappropriate than Luke's. First, Jon didn't respond to Luke's alleged offense, but attacked him for his McDonald's article and his attempts at contributing to the Objectivist movement. Not only is this just a distraction, but it's another example of a non-activist attacking an activist. It's easy to be a critic, isn't it?

Also, Jon tried to make the argument that by attacking the person after they die, it just hurts the loved ones. It's an appropriate argument under some conditions and if that were all he said, I would agree. But then he's decided that he'll attack Luke (and maybe Bill?) after he dies. Wouldn't that be attacking the people that care about Luke? If this is really why he's upset with Luke, isn't he completely contradicting himself? In fact, this kind of argument makes more sense if Jon's position was that the dead are sacred and you should never attack them. It doesn't make any sense at all given his stated reason for disagreement.

Post 85

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:15pm

Bill: Would you regard your determinism as reason sufficient to pee on your death announcement were such made on a site dedicated to her ideas? It�s clearly �unsupportive of Rand and Objectivism.�
As I said in a previous post, just because someone is not entirely supportive of Rand or Objectivism, it doesn't follow that he or she is unworthy of our respect; it depends on how corrupt the person's values are. However, if someone felt that despite my agreement with Objectivism on virtually every other issue, my views on determinism were so offensive to Rand's philosophy that they made me an unworthy participant on RoR, then I think he'd be justified in expressing it, just as Luke has done. But if so, then I would also expect him to have expressed those views while I was still alive and participating on the forum.
Would you consider his response, if it were aimed at you and based only on that, to be appropriate or a grotesque failure of benevolence?

I wouldn't regard it as an issue of benevolence, but of what is appropriate given his (admittedly erroneous) judgment of me. If that were his judgment, then he'd be justified in expressing it. Besides, I wouldn't be around to read or hear of it, so why should I care?

- Bill

Post 86

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:37pm

Besides, I wouldn't be around to read or hear of it, so why should I care?

Cheers!!

This is the best response anyone could give regarding others' afterwards view of them.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 7/29, 6:39pm)

Post 87

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:59pm

The only purpose of a thread on a forum like this announcing the death of a person who participated a lot in the past is to let people who liked him have a chance to say goodbye.

Nothing more.

I saw no attempt at remaking his image by denying the ideas he held, or trying to inject evil ideas into Objectivist culture or whatnot. To postulate that there is some kind of intellectual need to bash him at a time when others are saying goodbye, otherwise altruism is being given sanction, is just plain silly. And it is horrible public relations for Objectivism.

Goodbye Nathan. You were an honorable man. That's all I have to say.

Michael

Post 88

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 8:46pm

Joe, thank you for your moral support. I deeply appreciate it. Your Post 84 in this thread blasts like a breath of fresh air through the stale fog of conventional thinking expressed here.

Post 89

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:08pm

Hi Joe,

You write, �The second reason is that if someone attacks a person right after they die, the only benefit gained is to hurt those people who cared about him.�

I agree, of course.

Your next point is that we mustn�t allow �decency��in ourselves and in others�to keep us from answering distortions of "the record.� This point would carry more weight if someone had tried to distort the record. Aaron�s post says, �one of the most prolific posters on SOLOHQ� (Luke can�t argue with that,) and �Even if I didn't agree with him, I could be sure he'd always say something that makes you have to seriously stop and think.� I see no distortions in Aaron�s announcement. Michael Marotta called him a luminary, but that�s Marotta, right? Ed wrote, �Though I think he was misguided�� No distortions. Then Luke pops in to pee.

�But if it's offensive to the people who care about someone when you say bad things after they're dead, isn't it also offensive to people that didn't like him when you say nice things?�

No. Distorted things, yes. Nice, no.

��Jon's responses seem far more inappropriate than Luke's. First, Jon didn't respond to Luke's alleged offense, but attacked him for his McDonald's article��

That�s not exact. I called him small, vicious and an idiot, which response was definitely aimed at his offense. THEN I made fun of the McDonald�s article. That said, I acknowledge harboring truculence toward Luke that has built up over time. I intend to give it expression, staying this side of moderation at all times, for as long as you will tolerate.

��another example of a non-activist attacking an activist��

Again, not exact. In the early nineties I was President for a couple years of The Objectivist Club of The George Washington University. I took dates out on poster stapling nights, I held weekly meetings, and spent University funds for Ayn. I had Nort Buechner come and deliver his dog-eat-dog competition fallacy speech (on Valentines night, my screw-up.) I had Harry Binswanger and Edwin Locke come and debate some animal�s rights losers we lined up. From graduation through the early 00�s I was concentrated on getting rich, which I did, and now I don�t do shit unless I love it. I am an at-home Dad with a four and two year old. They will be in school soon enough, so I have been thinking of my next career and maybe it will involve Objectivism, or maybe not, but I might go back to school again. Perhaps I will start or take responsibilities for another campus club. Anyway, easy to be a critic, indeed.

��he's decided that he'll attack Luke (and maybe Bill?) after he dies.�

That was a joke. Thanks for reminding me to retract it. I would never, ever, not ever, remind anyone on the occasion of his passing that I will neither miss nor cry for Luke. Because I will. I call that being not a robot. Luke is clueless socially, but not evil.

Post 90

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 10:59pm

Still nothing posted on the blasphemous announcement at SoloPassion, Luke. So, does �the philosophy most assuredly demand� it, or don�t you really mean half the shit you spout? You had time to bask in blasts of fresh air, but none for �the defense of private property rights against those who would attack them�?

Post 91

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:52am

I asked Bill if it would be APPROPRIATE to pee on his death announcement, given his pro-determinism stance, if the announcement were made on a forum dedicated to Rand�s ideas considering that his stance is counter to her ideas.

He said �if someone FELT� (my emphasis) that �my views on determinism were so offensive to Rand's philosophy that they made me an unworthy participant on RoR,� then he would �think [they]'d be justified in expressing it.� �It� being the �admittedly erroneous judgment of me [Bill].�

So, as long as someone deeply FEELS his (admittedly erroneous!) judgment of another, then he is justified in expressing it.

Note that Bill will not judge the judgment that is based upon admittedly erroneous feelings. It is what it is, so expression of it is appropriate.

Wonderful.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/30, 1:33am)

Post 92

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:04am

Jon wrote,

I asked Bill if it would be APPROPRIATE to pee on his death announcement, given his pro-determinism stance, if the announcement were made on a forum dedicated to Rand�s ideas considering that his stance is counter to her ideas.

He said �if someone FELT� (my emphasis) that �my views on determinism were so offensive to Rand's philosophy that they made me an unworthy participant on RoR,� then he would �think [they]'d be justified in expressing it.� �It� being the �admittedly erroneous judgment of me [Bill].�

So, as long as someone deeply FEELS his (admittedly erroneous!) judgment of another, then he is justified in expressing it.

Note that Bill will not judge the judgment that is based upon admittedly erroneous feelings. It is what it is, so expression of it is appropriate.

Wonderful.

Jesus, Jon, give it a rest. You are hanging on to this issue like a pit bull, and are reflecting just about as much intelligence and insight too. What I meant by "felt," is "think." So I used the colloquial. Do you have to seize on that word and make it the centerpiece of your argument?

As for "not judging a judgment that is based upon admittedly erroneous feelings," I thought the original point was that Luke wasn't justified in expressing his views even if they were correct, because to do so was just "bad manners." What I was saying is that I didn't think it was bad manners to express one's opinion on this issue, even if Nathan didn't deserve to be denigrated as much as he was. As a matter of fact, after reading some of his posts, courtesy of Luke's links, I have even less respect for him now than I did originally. But I doubt that's going to satisfy you.

C'est la vie,

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/30, 2:04am)

Post 93

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:13am

�What I was saying is that I didn't think it was bad manners to express one's opinion on this issue, even if Nathan didn't deserve to be denigrated as much as he was.�

Got it.

Post 94

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 5:31am

Bill:

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?!

So you don't see the difference between disagreeing with some ideas of Rand and a personal attack? Is it offensive to you when someone disagrees with some of her ideas? To find a rational disagreement offensive is typical cultish behavior. And it's also quite hypocritical when you have yourself your disagreements with her, like on the determinism issue. Your disagreements are ok, but that of others are offensive? Are you the High Priest who decides what disagreements are acceptable and what not?

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!

Is it really that difficult? Who said that you're not supposed to criticize him? The point is of course when and where you do that.

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.

So, disagreeing with her on certain points is denigrating her? Then you're also denigrating her.

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.

Can't you read? Where did I say that is was THEIR forum?

Post 95

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 5:31am

MSK:

The only purpose of a thread on a forum like this announcing the death of a person who participated a lot in the past is to let people who liked him have a chance to say goodbye.

Nothing more.

I saw no attempt at remaking his image by denying the ideas he held, or trying to inject evil ideas into Objectivist culture or whatnot. To postulate that there is some kind of intellectual need to bash him at a time when others are saying goodbye, otherwise altruism is being given sanction, is just plain silly. And it is horrible public relations for Objectivism.

Goodbye Nathan. You were an honorable man. That's all I have to say.

Michael

Bravo Michael, that was the best post in this thread so far, I couldn't agree more.

Post 96

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 5:45am

Jon teased:

Still nothing posted on the blasphemous announcement at SoloPassion, Luke. So, does �the philosophy most assuredly demand� it, or don�t you really mean half the shit you spout? You had time to bask in blasts of fresh air, but none for �the defense of private property rights against those who would attack them�?

I mean all that I say, Jon, and implement it according to my best judgment, not yours, whether you like it or not, on my own time. It has been done now.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/30, 6:06am)

Post 97

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:35pm

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1299#comment-14203
I am sorry Luke, you will have a chance there only if you have something bad to say about BB.

Aaron's post:

It's not about you Luke.

Bravo! Aaron.

Out of all, yours is the most appropriate and intelligent post.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/30, 12:42pm)

Post 98

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:51pm

I wrote, "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?! Cal replied,

So you don't see the difference between disagreeing with some ideas of Rand and a personal attack?

Yes, there is a difference, but you've done virtually nothing except attack Rand's ideas since you've been on this forum. You scarcely have a good word to say about her and will seize any opportunity to discredit her views and those of her supporters. You've also engaged in personal attacks against Objectivists, continually berating them for their slavish devotion to Rand and Objectivism. My question is: Why are you on this forum in the first place? Just to put down Rand's ideas and those of her admirers? Is this some kind of intellectual sport for you? You don't think such conduct is offensive to those of use who admire Rand and consider her a great philosopher?

To find a rational disagreement offensive is typical cultish behavior.

See what I mean?

And it's also quite hypocritical when you have yourself your disagreements with her, like on the determinism issue. Your disagreements are ok, but that of others are offensive? Are you the High Priest who decides what disagreements are acceptable and what not?

You don't have a clue, do you? You see no difference between an occasional disagreement, and a continual, ongoing agenda of opposition to Rand's philosophy and those who support her.

I wrote, "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!"

Is it really that difficult? Who said that you're not supposed to criticize him? The point is of course when and where you do that.

Yes, I get that. What did you think I was addressing?

I said that Cal was "denigrating" Rand many years after her death.

So, disagreeing with her on certain points is denigrating her? Then you're also denigrating her.

by "denigrating" her, I meant attacking the validity of her ideas. Yes, I've done that on occasion. But it isn't my sole purpose for being on this list. You never miss an opportunity to discredit her views and to belittle her supporters as cultists and Randroids. I think we need a term for those who've made a cult out of criticizing Rand's views and attacking her followers -- perhaps "Reverse-Randroids" would serve the purpose -- a cult into which you and a few others on this list would fit nicely.

I wrote, "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."

Can't you read? Where did I say that is was THEIR forum?

You said it was inappropriate to criticize him on a forum to which he and his friends "belonged," as if it were their forum, one in which they were entitled to have their feelings respected, even if those feelings were anti-Objectivist. It isn't enough that the opponents of Rand are allowed to post on this forum. Their sensibilities must also be given special consideration. We must not object if one of their own is eulogized on the occasion of his death, lest his friends be offended by it.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/30, 12:59pm)

Post 99

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:04pm