| |
In case it hasn't already been made clear, the unsupported allegation which Robert has chosen to repeat is a dishonest one. Unspecified and unsubstantiated charges are always wrong. They are epistemologically wrong because they are arbitrary. The questioner wants his unsupported words to be treated the same as statements for which actual evidence or other valid support has been provided. That amounts to the altruistic demand that the listener do the speaker's work for him.
Such unsupported accusations are also publicly immoral. Unspecified charges and unsupported accusations amount to smears, smears which, since they are unspecific, the accused cannot answer or justly be expected to answer without cause. In written form, such as this internet forum, they stand as a permanent calumny. They should be erased from civil discourse. And beside being improper insults in the context of etiquette, such accusations can, depending on context, amount to libel, slander, and criminal defamation as well as contempt of court.
Observe the motivation of the person above. Is it intellectually honest? When challenged we see that what was posed as an "intellectual" question was intended as an attack both on the subject of the question and the people to whom the question was addressed as well as even you, the reader.
Unspecified charges and unsupported accusations are immoral smears at best. In the end they are the substance of show trials and lynchings.
They have no place within an Objectivist community.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/23, 9:24pm)
|
|
