RoR: Forum

Bill,

Thank you for your post 138. If by corrupt, you meant flawed or wrong, then fine I accept that. However, there's still a problem here I think.

You wrote you should have said:

What I was getting at is that just because a person has a disagreement with Objectivism, it doesn't mean that the person is unworthy of respect.

Now sure, that makes perfect sense. But you originally wrote:

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.

Forgetting about what corruption meaning was intended, this still rather directly leads the reader to believe you have assumed the error exists simply on the basis of dissent, not on the basis of content. That's a problem.

Why do you assume that I agree with this when it's obvious I don't. And if you don't assume it, then why are you stating this as if it were a self-evident truth?

I don't assume you agree. Just the opposite, I understand you don't agree and that's a problem. I'll have a look if I have time for examples, but what I mean is that some of these errors are not opinions or inductions, they are factual errors he has pointed out - indeed self-evident.

Bob

Post 141

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 6:56am

MSK writes:

"Has anybody heard of anything productive Michael Moeller has ever done in the Objectivist community other than bitch about people? I am not aware of anything, but I may have missed something."

BWAHAHAHA. Objectivists are now communitarians whose "productiveness" is to be measured by how they serve the "Objectivist community"? Sorry, MSK,but Objectivism is to serve MY GOALS and MY LIFE. My life does not serve the "Objectivist community"-- I am not duty-bound to the "Objectivist community". Its a thing called individualism and self-interest, you should try investigating it sometime (I recommend studying Ayn Rand). Although I can imagine it is foreign to a professional ass-kisser who tries to cling to the coattails of more famous Objectivists.

The fact that you would question my productiveness without knowing anything about me just goes to show what a low-level creep you really are.

But, since you ask, , the short of my own professional accomplishments includes the youngest project manager ever in my company whereby I co-invented/co-developed/co-engineered a number of scientific research devices for commercialization. Not being satisfied at my young age, I decided to put myself through law school; thus having a full-time job and almost full-time law school whereby I will promote my ideals in intellectual property and Constitutional law. Since I live by Objectivist principles, naturally it is promoted through my work and other endeavors I have engaged in to get people interested in Objectivism.

A large part of that, of course, means being sufficiently educated in Objectivism so you know exactly what you are promoting. Such as in law, knowing that the law does not impose a duty to act (except where there is a legal duty), and justifying it with hypothetical babies starving in the forest is downright asinine. Who did that again? Oh yeah, you. Hell, even the hacks who drafted the Model Penal Code recognized that an omission to act should not be criminal as it conflicts with American individualism. Strange that an alleged Objectivist would want to impose it on American jurisprudence. Or trying to integrate the Christian ethic of "turning the other cheek" into Objectivist ethics--talk about "howlers".

My debating on Objectivist forums is merely a past-time for me, as I have my own goals to pursue. And MSK would be loathe to know that some Objectivists high up on the food chain, including some he so admires (gasp!!), have commented positively on my understanding/knowledge of the philosophy. Those who have seen me debate know its true, quite contrary to MSK's claim that I only "bitch about people".

But you do ask a good question (via my own words) what I gain by wasting my time and energy responding to ignominious nonentities like you. The answer is: not much.

Michael

Post 142

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 7:41am

What I expected from MM.

He doesn't producing anything Objectivism-wise, but he has a job and talks to people, just like everybody.

Not a serious answer.

More bitching. (He likes to do that.)

(yawn)

Michael

Post 143

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 10:29am

I've just today received the news that Nathan Hawking has died, and I want to take a moment to post a few words.

First, I had no idea that Nathan was near 60. From his posting persona, and the photo he put up here, I had always assumed that he was much younger, and closer to my own age.

Second, it is no secret that Nathan Hawking and I were online adversaries (something I regret to a certain degree). Nathan and I had a very contentious relationship in listland. This was mainly due to his posting behavior on NB's list (which I administer), but carried over into a number of other discussion groups as well (including this one). I found Nathan's posting persona to be excruciatingly stubborn, pretentious, ill-informed, and primarily guided by a desire to "make trouble". In short, I thought most of Nathan's ideas were silly, and I didn't like him much as a poster.

Still, one's existence, one's *life* in this world can not (and ought not) be minimally judged by a short time of irritating behavior on internet discussion lists. None of us are fully recognized or known from our online discussions, and despite my well-documented dislike of Nathan's posting persona, I for one, have no problem in expressing my deep and genuine sadness at Nathan's recent passing.

*Life* is a dear, precious thing, and the loss of it is almost always a tragedy, as it certainly is with Mr. Nathan Hawking.

Rest in Peace.

RCR

Post 144

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 12:43pm

RCR: "... despite my well-documented dislike of Nathan's posting persona, I for one, have no problem in expressing my deep and genuine sadness at Nathan's recent passing.

"*Life* is a dear, precious thing, and the loss of it is almost always a tragedy, as it certainly is with Mr. Nathan Hawking."

My dislike of Nathan's posting persona wasn't as "well-documented" as RCR's, though I did share the dislike, as he knows. (Christian and I engaged in some off-list grousing about Nathan's posting methods on NB's list.) I also share Christian's sentiments at Nathan's death.

Plus, there's the thoroughly horrible cause of death. It saddens me to think of anyone dying from so terrible a disease as pancreatic cancer. I hope he did at least have some time for trout fishing, as he wanted to have, before the pain became overwhelming.

Rest in peace, Nathan Hawking.

Ellen

___

Post 145

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 12:53pm

"*Life* is a dear, precious thing, and the loss of it is almost always a tragedy"

Amen. That's probably why we contemplate at moment of such loss and reflect on how precious life is.

Post 146

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 2:06pm

I'd had email contact with Nathan til a couple months ago, but didn't hear confirmation of his death til two weeks after the fact. I assumed most others who knew him also wouldn't have the news, and my post was intended as an announcement. That I made positive comments concerning him was not intended to convert people to his views or as some bizarre type of challenge.

Thanks Jon, Jonathan, Hong, MSK and others for your comments, and Ed, RCR and Ellen for showing that even disagreement needn't entail disrespect and disdain.

Post 147

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:40pm

You are welcome, Aaron. I considered it a matter of plain decency.

I didn�t like his style. If I ever engaged him, I don�t remember it. When he became exasperated on SoloHQ, I sent him a note, including, �just stop taking all the bait, would you?� He took that well, saying he was getting similar advice from others. I never objected to the piling-on, the pecking he received�which regret perhaps explains my motivation to do so when I saw it again, (after his death, no less!)

Condolences to his friends, family, admirers�all who miss him.

Note to those who consider me above dirt: Please don�t tell anyone about my passing.

And on a lighter note, we may have a new thread soon. One where we can all agree and let the rage fly in mutual group ecstasy�word is Castro is almost dead. Miami streets are already full of revelers.

Post 148

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 4:03pm