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 2


Sanction: 28, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 28, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 28, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I went ahead and restricted Ted's access to the Dissent forum for now.  Frankly, I'm not sure it's enough.  I think Ted has created an enormously hostile environment here.  He's driven good people away already.  People can scream "unfair" all they want, but this site is supposed to be a sanctuary for Objectivists.  I will continue to reserve the right to make adjustments as necessary to keep this site valuable.  For the inevitable mob of people who hate to see executive power exercised, ask yourself whether you really think I care what your opinion is.

I'm also just banning this Howard guy.  His biggest contribution so far is to make accusations of racism and other smears.  We don't need any of that crap here.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 7:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anybody that thinks of screaming, "Unfair" should stop and think about property rights. Then they should think about Joe's motivation - keeping this site vibrant and friendly.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 7:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The call's been made.

No objections.  Some wincing, but no objections.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
Bill I have ignored your requests that I defend a straw man of your own making because after my telling you once on the Good Friday thread that it wasn't my duty to refute what you have made up I didn't feel like repeating myself.

When you quote to me where I said that orthodox Christians claim that Jesus didn't practice what he preached, and answer my questions to you on that thread for that matter, then I will defend it.
Very well, in Post 4 of that thread, you replied to Steve Wolfer as follows,
Fine, Steve. I know the facts. I offered them if you care. Rand's opinion is forgivable, based both on the obscurity of the topic and the fact that she was a Jew and an atheist, but indeed confused and historically ignorant.

You do not contest and you cannot contest that Jesus is portrayed as overcome by anger in the Temple, that he is reported to have whipped the money changers . . . The orthodox churches explicitly preach [this] as demonstrating his human shortcomings. . . .
Then in Post 18 of the same thread, you wrote,
(Think about the "what would Jesus do?" mantra. Should a Christian beat moneychangers with a whip? Of course not, his teachings are more important than his actions.) It is easy to see why Rand would have been misled on the idea.
Aren't you saying here in so many words that orthodox Christians claim that Jesus didn't practice what he preached?

As for answering your questions, I thought I did that? For example, you asked,
Bill, I have a question. Can you provide the source of Rand's description of Jesus as an ideal embodiment of man, and were those her exact words?
And I answered you by quoting Rand's comments in her Playboy interview. If there are other questions that you feel I haven't answered, would you restate them for me? Thanks.

Since you've just been relegated to the Dissent Forum, I'll cross post this there under the title "Replies to Ted on Rand's view of Christianity," so you can answer me if you want.


(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/11, 10:03pm)


Post 44

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 4:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great call, Joe!

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe: "I went ahead and restricted Ted's access to the Dissent forum for now. Frankly, I'm not sure it's enough."

Thank god (figuratively). This should have been done a long time ago, in my opinion. Ted's constant sneering insults and defensiveness about Christianity fully justifies this action. I knew he was a bizarre guy years ago when he inquired about the Objectivist position on animals eating the bodies of the dead as though that were a serious philosophical issue (no, I don't have that post at my fingertips, but I remember it because it was so random and weird). Letting him post on the Dissent forum is a favor.

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I expect Ted to leave RoR. He won't allow himself to be relegated to an inferior position on a forum in which he was the dominant poster for so many months. I think he's history.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 12:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

" I think Ted has created an enormously hostile environment here. He's driven good people away already." ... I don't know if I'd go that far, but for me it's definitely been uncomfortable here since Ted has been a very active poster. He brings out the worst in me. I've got no problem with Joe's call. (Not that he asked my opinion!) (I don't remember who this Howard guy is, though.)

Post 49

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Laure, review Howard Campbell's posting history on RoR to understand Joe's decision.

Post 50

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, you're hilarious. LOL

Post 51

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Trager, and everyone else, don't do this:

I knew he was a bizarre guy years ago when he inquired about the Objectivist position on animals eating the bodies of the dead as though that were a serious philosophical issue (no, I don't have that post at my fingertips, but I remember it because it was so random and weird).
Very bad form. Exceptionally bad form.  Ted can't defend himself against this sort of thing, so please refrain.


Post 52

Monday, April 12, 2010 - 9:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

***************
Very bad form. Exceptionally bad form. Ted can't defend himself against this sort of thing, so please refrain.
***************

I agree with you that it's sort of bad to trash on someone, but to be real clear, Ted can defend himself (in the Dissent forum) ... but we all know he just won't.

You could say that Ted can't defend himself 'without losing face' (or something like that), but it is incorrect -- as it was with Mindy Newton -- to say that Ted is some kind of a totally helpless victim in the matter (i.e., deserving of compassion in lieu of justice).

Ed

p.s. I don't plan to say anymore on this because of the 'heat' that has already been generated. Please consider a private response in place of -- or along with -- any public responses.

Post 53

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
 
False dichotomy. Someone can be a lunatic, out of touch with large swathes of reality, and still have great insights about those portions of reality he or she is in touch with.
 
And, one can't ignore the possibility that the record of his teachings was extensively altered.
 
The Gospel of Thomas, a sayings book recently discovered, may offer a glimpse of the earliest version of Jesus' teachings before those who offered him up as a God got to revise the oral and written record.
 
The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark, which itself is widely considered the first Gospel created, show no record of the resurrection story, which suggests that may have been a fabrication added after the fact.


Post 54

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I went ahead and restricted Ted's access to the Dissent forum for now.  ... For the inevitable mob of people who hate to see executive power exercised, ask yourself whether you really think I care what your opinion is.

I'm also just banning this Howard guy."

I maintain that the owner of any property should be free to do with it as they see fit. If anyone objects, they are free to go elsewhere, or start up their own website.

But, in the interest of a lively forum, you might be very sparing of the ban hammer, otherwise you wind up with an echo chamber.

Personally, as obnoxious as Ted was from time to time, I thought he did spark some interesting discussions, and the rest of the time I just ignored his posts.

But, like I said -- your website, your call.

As an alternative to a permanent ban, perhaps you could give Ted a cooling off period of a month or two, then let him back on, on probation, if he agrees to abide by whatever conditions of civility you wish to enforce. 

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 4/13, 1:42pm)


Post 55

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"...which suggests that may have been a fabrication added after the fact."


As opposed to the truth? See, I knew we've been mucking about in this nonsense for too long! :-)

Post 56

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve -- I thought the discussion was about the reality of what was going on in the heads of Christians, with the underlying assumption of pretty much everyone here that those thoughts were delusional. Reality includes everything that happens in the physical universe, including the non-reality-based thoughts going on in people's head.

Sort of like engineers discussing a faulty wiring circuit -- they all may agree that the circuit is faulty, but disagree about what is causing the faulty output.


Post 57

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 2:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, I was joking (see the smiley face at sentence's end?) - I know you don't take claims of resurrection as true!

Post 58

Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 9:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve -- yes, I got that you were joking, but you seemed to be making an underlying serious point that I responded to.

Perhaps my Entirely Frivolous Humorous Remark Detector TM was on the fritz.

Post 59

Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 11:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nope, I had no underlying point... maybe an underlying feeling of being tired of discussing Christian trivia.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.