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 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, May 25, 2009 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dickey, I find your 'style' of debate is disgusting, concrete bound, and intellectually pretentious. It is made mostly of moralistic diatribes designed to do nothing but prop up your inflated self-image through attacks on others. Rarely does anything you write rise far enough from that moralistic name-calling gutter to make it worth parsing.

Some people are self-righteous... without reason. Some people are just plain angry all the time.... and look for reasons to attack. You are one of those people.

I have not named you in past posts, because one-on-one exchanges with you feel more like cleaning a plugged toilet than the celebration of intellectual connection to like-minded people. I have avoided you because your posts strike me as malevolent attacks masquerading as rational discourse.

I hope the language in this post is strong enough to break through to your dim little world - it is hard to say since you seem to think in strange stereotypes drawn from Rand's novels - rather than in principles. You assign people characters from her novels and then address them as if you were Roark or Galt. I hardly call that thinking at all.

Feel free to bookmark this page so that you can come back at any time in the future and refresh your memory as to why I might choose to ignore you.






Post 21

Monday, May 25, 2009 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve I've seen you on countless occasions not address me specifically in your attacks against my positions, but instead you indirectly attack my position by referring to 'others' or in the torture thread refer to 'people' without actually naming any names of who you assign authorship to the claims you are attacking. You don't want to address your opponents directly, yet you want the luxury of attacking them by setting up any strawman you want against some unnamed author, letting you escape any accountability for those attacks. You claim you don't want to name names because in this instance with Mike Dickey you feel it's like "cleaning a plugged toilet". Well if you don't want to name names and instead go on to express incredulity at your unnamed opponents' positions, then you shouldn't be surprised when your opponents call you on that evasion. Attacking your opponents in the fourth person comes off as being incredibly pompous and self-serving.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Monday, May 25, 2009 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

First lets get some facts straight.
  • In post 6, I addressed Michael directly and made a very polite, non-attacking post.
  • In post 11, I said, "People are framing the "going on strike" issue in a strange way. They act as if only those of Galt-like stature can strike..."
    I addressed this to the position "people" were taking because several people were taking the position that I was addressing, and it wasn't an attack on anyone - I just put forth an alternative.
  • But then Dickey, in post 13, started this with by doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - what you call evasive, pompous, and self-serving - when he said, "Well sure people might say America is on the verge of totalitarian dictatorship, and those people would be utterly stupid to express such a thing"
-------------

I do occasionally address an issue without expressly naming the people involved. Sometimes it is a little awkward, most of the time it is legitimate. I'm attempting to talk about a idea and to express an opinion.

Some people are very combatitive and want to argue - not just agrue a position, but to attack a person. They want to do battle. They aren't fully happy without an opponent - someone to attack. Most of the time that isn't of interest to me. It's not what I want to do here.

Anybody who has been around RoR for a while has seen that I'm able to go head-to-head and that I can do that with or without the gloves on. But it isn't what I want to do. If I wanted to rip into people, to feel like some righteous warrior, I'd log onto Huffington Post or one of the liberal web sites. When I did do a lot of on-line fighting it was at Wikipedia where I was engaging self-avowed enemies of Rand and Objectivism, and attempting to prevent good articles from being destroyed. Why would someone rationally want to spend their time attacking those who hold the same basic beliefs?
-----------

I'm attempting to address the idea and not the person.

Sometimes my post ends up with a personal slant slipping into the words, yet not naming the person I'm being personal about. So, I'm not perfect - get used to it - I have no intention of changing. I'm here to talk ideas and not to get into one-on-one running battles because some people have a psychological need for enemies to attack.





(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 5/25, 5:05pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Monday, May 25, 2009 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

I'm attempting to address the idea and not the person. Sometimes my post ends up with a personal slant slipping into the words, yet not naming the person I'm being personal about. So, I'm not perfect - get used to it - I have no intention of changing.


Here's the problem, you restate the idea into a strawman, and then attach no authorship to the idea. It comes across like you're just too damned important to actually address anyone's position directly, like you're above the fray, riding in on your moral high horse and looking down on all the immoral brutes who dare take some ridiculous position that in reality they don't actually have. You also accomplish this by thumbing your nose at people and claim they "psychologize" their opponents yet on many occasions, you do the same thing. And considering the nature of the poll question, you would have to ask what the motive for going on 'strike' is, and whether one could sincerely be on 'strike' or not given our current reality and the context of the particular individual striking. Doubting the sincerity is perfectly valid if we 1) don't live in a totalitarian society 2) the person has not accomplished any successes to even have the opportunity of being a victim in the first place. If this is considered "psychologizing" then it is perfectly valid given the topic at hand. So I find the way you debate to be incredibly obnoxious. If you don't want to change then fine, but don't expect me to change in order to conform to your obnoxious debate style. I'm not going away anytime soon, so every time you indirectly attack me, expect the same response from me every time.

Post 24

Monday, May 25, 2009 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolfer, I find your 'style' of debate is disgusting, concrete bound, and intellectually pretentious. It is made mostly of moralistic diatribes designed to do nothing but prop up your inflated self-image through attacks on others. Rarely does anything you write rise far enough from that moralistic name-calling gutter to make it worth parsing.

Some people are self-righteous... without reason. Some people are just plain angry all the time.... and look for reasons to attack. You are one of those people.

One-on-one exchanges with you feel more like cleaning a plugged toilet than the celebration of intellectual connection to like-minded people. I have avoided you because your posts strike me as malevolent attacks masquerading as rational discourse.

I hope the language in this post is strong enough to break through to your dim little world - it is hard to say since you seem to think in strange stereotypes drawn from Rand's novels - rather than in principles. You assign people characters from her novels and then address them as if you were Roark or Galt. I hardly call that thinking at all.

Feel free to bookmark this page so that you can come back at any time in the future and refresh your memory as to why I might choose to ignore you.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Monday, May 25, 2009 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolfer, a little debating tip for you, if someone can repeat right back to you everything you just said and it makes just as much sense, then you haven't really said anything at all.


In post 11, I said, "People are framing the "going on strike" issue in a strange way. They act as if only those of Galt-like stature can strike..."
I addressed this to the position "people" were taking because several people were taking the position that I was addressing, and it wasn't an attack on anyone - I just put forth an alternative.


Actually people were merely attacking the sincerity of those who claim to be on strike, no one ever suggested that any and every striker at all times must have at one time been a successful great productive genius, this was only the easiest and most obvious way to ascertain the sincerity of a striker. Any productive person can be a striker, but their productive nature ought to be evidential. It’s a rather simple point. Someone who has never done anything productive and has demonstrated no evidence of their capacity to do anything productive claiming to be on strike is indistinguishable from some degenerate who is merely trying to obfuscate their own failings from themselves in some twisted moral high ground.


But then Dickey, in post 13, started this with by doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - what you call evasive, pompous, and self-serving - when he said, "Well sure people might say America is on the verge of totalitarian dictatorship, and those people would be utterly stupid to express such a thing"


Ha, I hope you seriously aren’t referring to the fact that I used “sure some people …” since it ought to be obvious I was responding to your point, in your usual vague style that “some people” say such things. What People. And Is that YOUR position? If it is not YOUR position, then why do you care if I attack the validity of such a statement as utterly disgusting and absurd, which it is. If it were in fact YOUR position, but you were too cowardly to state as such and instead alluded to be by mentioning SOME people, then your indignant reaction makes sense. DO YOU think that America is on the VERGE OF TOTALITALIRAN DICTATORSHIP, yes or no? Or do you merely find it comforting to inform me of whatever random whim happens to cross some idiots mind? Hey, Maybe the US is on the Verge of become a Zionist client state, or a communist paradise, or a theocratic aristocracy, I’m sure SOME people, SOME WHERE, think each and every one of these things.

‘Some people’ are perpetually evasive and disguise their pompous arrogance through pacifistic platitudes, hiding behind allusions in the attempt to appear to themselves that they are above any such trite discourse and wouldn’t dare lower themselves to the hum drum tit for tat dialog of the mob. They give themselves a big ol pat on the back for being so noble and austere, like some kind of monk whose achieved a nirvana state of simultaneously arguing various points but never actually ‘lowering’ himself to the status of arguing! They like to throw little grenades of hot topics instigating debate and pop their heads in occasionally to reinforce the perception monkish state of superiority. ‘Some people’ might call such people trolls. ‘Other people’ might laugh at those, since they actually grant sincerity to the actors, a troll is at least honest with himself about the nature of his actions…


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 1:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that Steve, in this thread, is more right than either John or Michael.

Ed
[not afraid to name names]


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 5:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Going 'on strike' has as much validity to not just a Galt, but to Owen Kellogg, too... as long as one earns one's way in life, that is being productive, not as a parasite - and as long as one seeks, for oneself, to know more, but to keep the knowing to oneself and/or to those considered as worthy of also knowing, one is as much 'on strike' as another...

Post 28

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

think that Steve, in this thread, is more [wrong] than either John or Michael [or Joe or Jay or Ted.]


There...fixed.


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 3:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Going 'on strike' has as much validity to not just a Galt, but to Owen Kellogg, too... as long as one earns one's way in life, that is being productive, not as a parasite - and as long as one seeks, for oneself, to know more, but to keep the knowing to oneself and/or to those considered as worthy of also knowing, one is as much 'on strike' as another..."

So Robert, are you on strike? Or just on welfare?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/26, 4:17pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

Fine. I'll stand against more folks if you like -- if it's in defense of Steve in this thread (notice how precise I'm being).

Steve addressed Michael initially, and he did it politely. He disagreed, but at least he didn't go "ad hominem." Steve had good points, too. Then, basically, you and Michael went after Steve like it was a Salem witch-hunt or something. Steve used a 'nondiscrete plural' such as "people" (as in "people are framing [the issue] in a strange way") and then even went on to friggin' explain himself! But that wasn't good enough for you and Michael. No, then you and Michael jumped all over his back and down his throat, calling him cowardly or whatnot.

You guys were cruel to him, plain and simple.

Ed


Post 31

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Collecting Social Security is not being on welfare...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Steve had good points, too.


Like what? The ridiculous notion we're on the "verge of a totalitarian dictatorship". Because you know Ed, there really are such things as a totalitarian dictatorship we can look to to compare us with, and to say we're on the verge of something like a North Korean state is absurdly stupid. Additionally he just set up a bunch of strawmans, and using his words, he "astoundingly" missed a very simple concept, that being, if you were never a successful producer, you can't possibly be a victim to morally justify your 'strike'.

You guys were cruel to him, plain and simple.


I don't agree, not even in the slightest. Steve has been nothing more than a condescending prick to me time and time again has repeatedly used ad hominems against me. Just check this thread and this thread for proof. He's nothing more than an obnoxious jerk. You want to reduce this down to 'picking sides', then so be it Ed. I'll take that as your sanction of Steve's cruel behavior to me, and now I have a better understanding of how you think of me. At least now we can be honest with how we view one another.



(Edited by John Armaos on 5/26, 8:17pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 8:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think its important to point out what motivated Michael Marotta to put up this poll in the first place, which was from this prior conversation with me here. In that thread Michael criticized my skills as a business man. I asked if had ever ran a successful business, the answer from Michael was no, because he was on 'strike'. Yet since he's never demonstrated his abilities to successfully run a profitable business, then his position of being on 'strike' is indistinguishable from someone who is simply incapable of running a profitable business.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 9:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Going 'on strike' has as much validity to not just a Galt, but to Owen Kellogg, too

And Kellogg was the best up and coming rail engineer Dagny had seen in her entire career. He was a smart, productive, efficacious mind. Him going on strike meant something.

Even the truck driver in Galt's Gultch was still a truck driver before going on strike.

How powerful would it have been for the lady carrying water from the well in empty oil cans in Starnsville to claim to be 'on strike'?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 1:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Ad Hominem said, "if you were never a successful producer, you can't possibly be a victim to morally justify your 'strike'."

Wrong. To be a victim only requires that your rights be violated. Going on strike means choosing not to take actions that support those who deny your rights. No degree of prior success is required.

A college student could go on strike when he graduates with an automotive engineering degree and sees the industry has been nationalized. A small time business owner who has never netted more than minimum wage for himself, could go on strike, after realizing that without government regulations and taxes he would have made a good living.

Post 36

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

Steve had good points, too.


Like what? The ridiculous notion we're on the "verge of a totalitarian dictatorship". Because you know Ed, there really are such things as a totalitarian dictatorship we can look to to compare us with, ...

Steve gave instances -- e.g., bank nationalization -- of a slide toward dictatorship.

He didn't say that we are there (like N. Korea or whatever), he said that that is where we are moving. Rand said that, too. It's not enough to be able to point to someone more screwed up and then to say: "See, we are not THAT screwed up!" That's comparative, but it's not normative.

It's a version of social metaphysics to compare yourself to the Jones' instead of to an objective standard. On an objective standard, the United States of America is closer to "peace-time" statism now than it has ever been. Government spending is in the multiple trillions now. The percentage of GDP spent in the public sector is encroaching that spent in the private sector (if it hasn't already surpassed it).

Also, Steve's point about the "real" (underlying) issue being a 'sanction of the victim' is a good point.

You guys were cruel to him, plain and simple.


I don't agree, not even in the slightest. Steve has been nothing more than a condescending prick to me time and time again has repeatedly used ad hominems against me.

I knew this might come up so I tried to be precise and to limit my argument to what's found in this thread. If you go back and read my posts here, you will see that I was trying to limit judgment to this thread and not others. I am not prepared to defend everything Steve has said, just what he was initially trying to say.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/27, 7:32am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Condescending prick said:

Mr. Ad Hominem said, "if you were never a successful producer, you can't possibly be a victim to morally justify your 'strike'."

Wrong. To be a victim only requires that your rights be violated.


Don't be obtuse. I'm talking in the context of someone being on 'strike', as in the Atlas Shrugged kind of way, i.e. parasites victimizing producers. Were you even paying attention to what the topic is? You cannot go on strike if you haven't produced anything. And there are plenty of opportunities to make a lot of wealth for yourself in this country.

A college student could go on strike when he graduates with an automotive engineering degree and sees the industry has been nationalized.


Has the automotive industry been nationalized? No, it hasn't. There are a great many of degrees you can get and get a job in an industry that hasn't been nationalized. As a matter of fact, there are very few if any industries nationalized in America. You can graduate in just about anything and get a job in private sector here, and in many countries abroad. So your example doesn't even correspond to anything in reality. And that was a very important point I made several times already, we don't live in that kind of society. You can do far more good with the money you can produce and keep for yourself if you choose to work than the amount of evil the government can do with the tax money it takes from you.

A small time business owner who has never netted more than minimum wage for himself, could go on strike, after realizing that without government regulations and taxes he would have made a good living.


Who does that pertain to? Not me. I own a business and I make 6 figures every year. I would first question the ability of said business man to be able to make more than minimum wage earnings if that's all he could accomplish in our economy.






(Edited by John Armaos on 5/27, 2:17pm)


Post 38

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Steve gave instances -- e.g., bank nationalization -- of a slide toward dictatorship.


And that is a ridiculous example of "being on the verge of a totalitarian dictatorship". Obama at most will be in office for 8 years, and then a new administration will take his place. Whatever interferences are happening in the banking market now does not necessarily mean it will be permanent, nor does it constitute "being on the verge of a totalitarian dictatorship". As of now there is no push for a nationalization of banks and if there was one, the likely-hood of that happening is almost nil. That doesn't mean there isn't cause for concern, or that what's happening now is not wrong. It is of course wrong, and we should lobby against it. But to say we're on a "verge" of a totalitarian dictatorship is absolutely demeaning to people who live in such societies. If an oppressed North Korean could read such a comment right now he'd be disgusted and would consider our lives to be astronomically decadent compared to his. I think Objectivists need to calm down a bit and take a deep breath and lay off the absurd hyperboles. It puts off a great many people we'd like to sway over to free-market ideals.

He didn't say that we are there (like N. Korea or whatever), he said that that is where we are moving.


He said we're on the "verge" of it. That means almost there. We're not almost there, not even close. We have an unprecedented level of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, a system of judicial due process, and most, of course not all, of our economic freedoms. That so far from verge that's it's just absurdly stupid to use that word. We are still one of the freest nations on this planet and relatively speaking one of the freest ones in the history of mankind.

Post 39

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I thank you for speaking up for me. I followed the links that Aramos gave as 'proof' of my evilness - it showed quite the opposite.

But, please feel free to ignore any further comments from Aramos on the subject of 'Steve' - when he returned to his base level of name calling (prick, jerk, stupid, etc.) his posts ceased to be rational or worthy of any attention.

Steve

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.