RoR: Forum

Mike,

I don't favor driving him from RoR. I've talked to Ted quite a bit on other forums as well. It's just that people don't want to get personal beyond a certain threshold or see lots of religious apologia on this site. I think that if he starts to use the dissent forum when appropriate and starts to let other people have their say this is going to blow over. He's not taking Bill Dwyer, Steve Wolfer or Luke Setzer's contexts into account.

This site is different than solopassion or Objectivist Living where the discussions have wider latitude in certain respects and people have self-selected accordingly.I hope that lower key, thoughtful people will continue to have a place where they feel comfortable participating.

Jim

Post 21

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 1:59pm

Sorry Mike. I don't think I agree with anything you just said. I'm with the others. Ted has been a mixed case from day one. I don't even believe he's an Objectivist. He's a more consistent defender of Christianity than anything else, but I think he's all over the place. It's been fine in the past. He contributes a lot, and many of the things he posts are valuable. But when he gets into debates, he takes the worst elements of Objectivist culture, like believing you're never wrong. He's right in some context! You're just not looking hard enough!

This site is supposed to promote Objectivism, and be a place where we can share our ideas. Ted's theologic viewpoint requires him to attack every expression of atheism or anti-theism. I agree it should be restricted to Dissent (at best). I don't think people should be harassed for speaking out against religion, especially on this site. And before people say that Ted isn't against atheism per se, but just demanding more rigor, I've heard it all. I'm not buying it.

I'll try to resolve this today. I haven't decided what course of action to take.

Post 22

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 2:06pm

Thanks for the update, Joe. I agree that when Ted is good, he can be very good. But when he is bad, he is terrible, and a little poison in a lot of good food can still kill a person.

Post 23

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 2:15pm

Since Joe has decided to make this public, I will say what I have said in private.

I think the mere notion of calls for ostracism based on popularity votes speaks for itself. Who would be next?

The solution is simple.

Boycott me if you don't like me or what I say.

Don't just talk about it. Do it. Ignore my posts, don't respond to me. You will stop wasting your emotional energy, and I will not have to expend mine to counter you. We will each have more time to contribute to the site without the personal garbage.

A true win-win stuation.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 4/11, 2:18pm)

Post 24

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 2:35pm

The problem, Ted, is that your posts defending theism -- your protests to the contrary notwithstanding -- make this site look like a safe haven for appeasing compromisers. It is like the New York Times (NYT) running columns by Paul Krugman. The conception in the minds of readers of a publication integrates as the sum of the parts they perceive. Your abundance of posts -- some consonant with Objectivism and many others not -- creates a misintegrated and distorted view of the founder's vision of RoR as I understand it. The fact that they are so abundant and so divergent becomes a problem for RoR attempting to draw quality members who do commit fully and "narrowly" to Objectivism. Your recent squabble with the highly creative Richard Gleaves exemplifies this problem -- your protests over his copyright infringements notwithstanding.

I advocated the boycott strategy in the hopes of depriving you of an audience so you would go elsewhere. It had the opposite effect because it apparently removed from your mind any notion of obstacles to your incessant, divergent posting. Moreover, your propensity for opening the floodgates of verbiage and your "ha, ha, gotcha" attitude in noting facts others may not know betray your soul as that of an intellectual bully.

Finally, I think you are a bloody coward for hiding behind that avatar, and you disgrace your fellow fans of Doctor Who.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 4/11, 3:03pm)

Post 25

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 2:41pm

Ted,

The concept of a a boycott in a forum is not particularly functional. I don't come here to not-post. We are not talking about a popularity contest. We are talking about behaviors that are inappropriate to this forum.

It is not up to us to change our behaviors, which aren't being made an issue of by many of the members here - as well as the owner. Your behaviors are the issue. Change them.
1. Take religious issues to Dissent,
2. Become 'religious' in avoiding ad hominem arguments - at this point you've acted as if you don't even believe you have made this form of argument,
3. Be respectful of Rand and Objectivism when expressing disagreement,
4. Pay attention when someone as level-headed and civil as Bill makes remarks as strong as those he's made today!

Post 26

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 2:43pm

I'm not sure if there were written terms we agreed to for our participation here, but I did find the terms of participation at Objectivism Online. Some of their terms are unique to them, and some seemed too restrictive, but here is a selected subset I think worthy of support:

"Each participant agrees, through use of this forum, to the following participation terms:

"1.Consistency with the purpose of this site
Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, ...

"2.Respect for Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Participants agree to avoid making rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, ...

...

"5.No personal attacks
Healthy debate is encouraged, but participants agree not resort to personal attacks, and do not belittle someone else's argument. Instead of making it personal, participants agree to use rational, persuasive skills to make a point or criticize another�s."

Post 27

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 2:49pm

To supplement Steve's observations about Objectivism Online, I want to add that the moderators (plural) do a good job of dousing flame wars by locking threads that turn into them -- much like safety doors that close automatically in the event of a fire in a large public building to prevent the spread of damage.

Post 28

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 3:37pm

A concern for factual accuracy has nothing to do with arguing for religion, any more than refusing to believe that Obama is a practicing satanist without proof is a defense of socialism because he is a socialist. If someone were to say that Jews use the blood of gentile children to make matzoh, would it be a defense of Judaism to deny it? I did not deny that Christians sanction sacrifice. I said that it is necessary to be accurate about the nature of that sacrifice.

Yes, a list of objective explicit rules for everyone to follow would be fine. But to act as if saying that Rand's evaluation of the morality of sacrifice was correct but her statement of what the actual Christian philosophy is was inaccurate is "rude or insulting" is absurd.

If it is valid to make a post about Good Friday that includes repetition of a factual inaccuracy outside dissent, then it is valid for that factual inaccuracy to be explained outside dissent. I did not post that thread. I was not aware that I would be judged ex post facto for breaking the unspoken rule that one cannot point out a minor factual correction. I miss where I stated that I believe in the resurrection. It is either true or not true that Christians believe Jesus was sacrificed as a morally perfect human. Statements about what Christians believe are no more personal statements of my alleged Christian belief than statements about what Marx taught would be statements of my Marxism.

If religion is such a radioactive topic then require all posts on it to be posted to dissent. I stand on the principles of reason and the primacy of existence. As it stands, there exist the categories of fetish love, humorous and infamous in the Quotes gallery. Is anyone who posts under those categories thereby to be relegated to dissent?

No one is asking anyone to come here to not-post. I am not the only contributor here. I can prevent no one from contributing. Come here and post your own threads. Yes, the responsibility for the boycott would be yours. But I could do nothing by force to make you break it or keep it. And while not acknowledging me you can acknowledge some other value you hold higher, while those who value my contributions, or even just some of them, can enjoy mine

If you call for a boycott you are not interfering with the anyone's ability to associate with anyone, but calls for forcible ostracism based on popularity polls, besides being manifestly un-Objectivist, are calls to prevent others on the forum from associating with someone whose writing they appreciate because you don't like them.

I am not following anyone from thread to thread and making jokes about him in places where he hasn't even tread. I ask that we all just do the same.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 4/11, 4:45pm)

Post 29

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 4:07pm

The problem, Ted, is that your posts defending theism --

I really disagree with this, and defy you to point to anything Ted wrote that "defends" theism. Ted is defending historical integrity, not dogma. Big difference. Now, I concede that much of his defense involve issues that simply aren't important to the bigger picture, but I'm not going to disparage his motives. It's clear to me, at least, that what he really cares about is historical accuracy, which has nothing to do with defending religion or being an apologist for it.

The way Ted disagrees could definitely use a makeover, but his irritation with in-accuracy shouldn't be confused with conspiring with the enemy.

Post 30

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 4:09pm

I don't care if Ted does have some deep-rooted fondness for aspects of Christianity. If they become predominate in a thread, and that thread becomes too much about Christianity, then it is just moved to Dissent. That preserves the nature of RoR - we simply need to be aware of that and be quicker to act.

My concern is for all of the people that are chased away by personal attacks.

In Ted's last post, this is the part he neglected to address: "... participants agree not resort to personal attacks, and do not belittle someone else's argument."

Post 31

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 4:17pm

As it stands, saying that Jesus died because of his royal blood, not his scores on the moral SAT, hardly amounts to making Christianity look better.

It makes it look even more primitive.

In her own terms it was Rand who was giving Christianity a compliment it didn't deserve.

As for the dissentfulness of my comments on the Good Friday thread, I did not myself create a thread with the thesis that Rand had made a mistake of fact in her Playboy interview. Had I felt that it was an importnat but incorrect Obvjectivist doctrine to believe that the Crucifixion was motivated by the need to sacrifice a morally perfect human, I would have indeed created that thread in Dissent. But there is no Objectivist doctrine at question. It was a mere question of fact consequential only if those who want to argue on a sound footing with educated Christians were to repeat it. My pointing it out is a defense of objectivism.

Post 32

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 4:29pm

Have you not noticed that by showing the Crucifixion to be a matter of royal blood rather than ethics it ties the atonement of Jesus' death to barbarian human sacrifice moreso than Rand, who treats it as if it were some pacifist Buddhist philosophy?

The altarboy fantasy based on your imagination running wild as evidnce of my character was bad enough, Steve. Drop the smears with this "deep seated fondness for Christianity." It is a deep seated fondness for factual accuracy that transcends a hatred of Christianity so strong as to countenance untruths which are imagined to make Christianity look bad.

But my pointing out the truth here doesn't make Christianity look better.

Showing the Crucifixion to be a matter of the ransoming power of royal blood, rather than a theory of ethics, ties the atonement to barbarian human sacrifice moreso than does Rand herself.

----
Oops, my fault, thought the last post of mine was above, not below Steve's #30

(Edited by Ted Keer on 4/11, 4:35pm)

Post 33

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 4:35pm

My concern is for all of the people that are chased away by personal attacks.

Can't disagree with that, Steve.

Post 34

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 4:39pm

In Ted's last post, this is the part he neglected to address: "... participants agree not resort to personal attacks, and do not belittle someone else's argument."

You mean like your respectful "Give me a break!" in the Good Friday thread? I addressed the part of your post that needed addressing. Silence implies assent. I said "Yes, a list of objective explicit rules for everyone to follow would be fine." I am sure you want them to apply equally. To everyone.

I simply want the same well defined and explict rules to apply to all, no ex post facto judgments, no ostracisms based on personality contests. Those are the principles of objective law consistent with Objectivism.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 4/11, 4:49pm)

Post 35

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 5:35pm

Equally, Ted? Let's see what is equal to saying, "Give me a break!"

Here is what you alledged about me because I said, "Give me a break!":

- You said I am again showing no concern with facts, just emotions
- You said I'm insulting and contemptuous as usual
- You refered to my argument as ignorant nonsense
- You alleged I assume Rand is infallible
- You assumed I believe that knowledge of facts on my part is unnecessary

And in that same thread you didn't stop with that - you went on with these accusations:

- anti-intellectualism
- making the the arguments of relativists and intellectual cowards

And this jewel of a sentence:

"Your inability to provide a consistent opinion, acknowledge direct questions, and address the issue rather than your emotions is the most obscenely embarrassing of spectacles from a self-described Objectivist on a philosophical forum."

Are you unable to see how unpleasant that all is and how that style drives people away?

Post 36

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 5:38pm

Shut up, Ted, and face it.

For you have broken the cardinal rule that transcends any and all forum rules.

Apologize, and move on.

Howard

PS: And Ted, in the future please try to remember the unspoken forum rule that trumps all others: "Thou shall not be a tall poppy"

Post 37

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 5:43pm

I've never seen Ted as a defender of religion, Christianity or otherwise, but as someone who insists that criticisms of religion be kept carefully accurate.

Ted, you tend to chastise people as much as to correct their facts. It isn't always taken playfully - if that is your intent. It is (and often can easily be) taken as insult, and that is what I think most of this discussion is really about (showing more respect). You are often aggressively critical towards the authors of posts containing information you feel is inaccurate. It is just counter-productive - i.e. pisses people off.

I enjoy most (not all) of Ted's posts, and do think far more would be lost than gained if he were not here. He is a spark for new discussion, adds humor, and helps keep people on their toes (even while stepping on them).

Anyhow, that's my 2�.

jt

Post 38

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 5:45pm

Teresa,

My beef with Ted on this particular thread is not that he is defending theism or even taking issue with Rand's view of Christianity; it's that he doesn't argue in good faith. I wrote the lead essay for this thread in which I quoted Rand's comments in Playboy Magazine. Ted quickly jumped in to disparage Rand's understanding of Christianity.

I have repeatedly asked him to show me where orthodox Christians claim that Jesus didn't practice what he preached -- that Jesus was not, contrary to Rand, a morally perfect individual. Ted's response? He simply refuses to answer me. I have asked him point blank and on numerous occasions if he thought the pope, who is quite clearly an orthodox Christian, would say that Jesus didn't practice what he preached. Again, Ted has ignored my questions and continued to claim that Rand didn't know what she was talking about.

If you're going to criticize Rand on an Objectivist forum, then you need to address the replies of her defenders, not just ignore them when it suits you. I have no problem with honest disagreement. What Ted does is disingenuous. He accuses Rand's defenders of being dogmatic true believers, while ignoring the fact that his own approach to ideas is far from sincere and open minded.

He insults posters who disagree with him, even after people have respectfully objected to it. He won't own any of this, which tells me that he isn't interested in changing his behavior.

Again, this has nothing to do with honest and respectful disagreement. If that were what we are dealing with, I'd have no problem with it.

- Bill

Post 39

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 6:45pm