| | Barbara,
I have managed to make a small window of time in a frantic schedule, because I want to respond to you. First I would like to thank you for your kind and very moderate response. And, secondly, I accept your criticisms of my post - I knew myself when I wrote it that I was not supporting all of my statements.
I made a private comment to a friend that I wanted so much to reply to the two post from Lindsay which so angered me, but a full reply would cost me time and energy I just don't have right now (isn't it always the way - life gets in the way of doing what you really want to do sometimes!!). One thing got to me to override my original decision not to post. It could be said - with justification - that if I knew I didn't have the time to do the job properly, I should have refrained from those comments, and I would accept that as fair criticism; after all I'm levelling it at myself. !!
The one thing I will say tho' is that I never make statements where the reader cannot find the support for themselves if they want to look - this is a basic tenet of scientific writing, and I was, for a while, a scientist.
Regis' writings are available for anyone to check my statement that at no time has he said "everything is volitional"; the accusation of reliance on bad "science" is harder to check. A post can be found from me to Lindsay asking him to supply me with his evidence for his claim that "homosexuality is proven to be intrinsic, period". He didn't answer. Since I am fairly sure not much goes on this site without his knowledge, and since I will not accuse him of blatant rudeness without better evidence, I can only assume he ignored me because he had no such knowledge. This smacks of deviousness. I found the sort of "science" being posited on this forum as "proof" from links supplied by Phillip Howson, (and I apologise Phillip for letting pressure of time let me not thank you for these - I do so now).
I suggest you read these for yourself and ask yourself "is this the language that science may properly speak". This sort of work demonstrates only why "hard core" scientists have scant regard for the "social scientists" among us. However, ultimately the responsibility rests with the writer, and on reflection I should have left alone those areas I had not the time to fully address.
But not the last and major point. Never that.
My husband is a contract mainenance and construction engineer. He travels over Western Australia to various mine sites. He has been discussing with me his interest going to Iraq. So we did research, talking to people who have been there, are "in the know". The major danger, he was told, comes from the groups, not religious per se, but who "trade" in kidnapped Westerners. Note the phrase. A small group will do the first "grab". The reason it is so hard to located the victim is because they are moved constantly, being "traded up" between groups. Ultimately, they get "traded" on to a group with enough clout to negotiate a big dollars settlement. Note this, human beings, without even the slaves dignity of working in return for life, are being used as objects. And I came back from this meeting to see again Lindsay Perigo, noted Objectivist with a huge following, almost idolised by the young (and even not so young) on this forum at least, promulgating the first stage of the concept.
Am I saying Linday would support trading of humans for money?. Of course not. But nothing, no philosophy, is perfect in its beginnings. They have tiny errors. But ask any mathmetician or scientist what happens to a tiny error over the length of its' trajectory - it becomes hugely magnified. (And, if anyone doesn't believe me, try hanging wallpaper in a room and saying to yourself, "well the top's only out by half a centimetre", then see where you are half way round the room!!:-)].
Most religio/philosophies looked pretty good to their supporters to begin with. (Yes, unsupported, just read lots of ancient history!!)
But they contained tiny flaws which were never identified and eradicated.,and which grew over time to produce the horrors they are now.
Unless these tiny errors in Objectivism are sought out now and crushed, we could have a flourishing and powerful Objectivist society in 150 yrs time justistifying euthanasia and the treating of "non-rationals" as Objects. And Lindsay took these first steps on a horrific slippery slope by using words and concepts - unbelievably powerful tools - to refer to a fellow human being as "it". A thing, with no rights, no claim to morality, no justification for being alive, no life of "its" own to claim. Just an object, available only for ownership and trade. Just like the Islamofascists.
Perhaps, in my post, I should have concentrated only on this. But I call things as I see them Barabara, I have done all my life - and copped a heap of flak in the process. But I know no other way to be.
Thank you for your time. (Lawks, its 9.47pm - I am due at the airport in two hours, and am only half packed........busy.......busy....busy :-)
Cass
|
|
