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 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


Post 100

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My interpretation of Rodney's post is less pessimistic. I think that Rodney is only fed up with THIS THREAD, and that he plans to continue contributing to SOLOHQ (Rodney, is that accurate?).

I feel that Rodney had been trying to have an honest debate aimed at understanding and simply got pulled in deeper by Daniel's spiteful cunning. Daniel never really was concerned with honest, rational debate - only to try to "damage his opponents" - this is his modus operandi (to dispell doubts on this, review my recap carefully).

We know "who wins" in a compromise between good and evil - we merely have to take the next 2 steps and judge someone (Daniel) for what they really are, and start to treat him accordingly. Daniel does not objectively deserve the general respect that we afford other thinkers on this forum.

A spade is a spade.

Ed

Post 101

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed writes:
>My interpretation of Rodney's post is less pessimistic. I think that Rodney is only fed up with THIS THREAD, and that he plans to continue contributing to SOLOHQ (Rodney, is that accurate?).

Ed, if your interpretation of Rodney's message is this off-base, I hold out little hope for your grasp of the trickier points of the argument.

>I feel that Rodney had been trying to have an honest debate aimed at understanding and simply got pulled in deeper by Daniel's spiteful cunning. Daniel never really was concerned with honest, rational debate - only to try to "damage his opponents" - this is his modus operandi (to dispell doubts on this, review my recap carefully).

Charming! Actually, I've been as straightforward as I can explaining why Rodney's position is as silly as claiming the moon is made of green cheese - no matter how much pseudo-intellectual blab he's tied himself up in. Why should I accord such a position any "respect" at all? Who is he - Rodney Dangerfield?

Rather than formulate any response, he's packed a sad. My "spiteful cunning" indeed! A man talks high-toned twaddle, then when challenged finds himself unable to defend it. I believe this is what is commonly called a "blank out".

>We know "who wins" in a compromise between good and evil - we merely have to take the next 2 steps and judge someone (Daniel) for what they really are, and start to treat him accordingly. Daniel does not objectively deserve the general respect that we afford other thinkers on this forum.
A spade is a spade.

Oh grow up, the pair of you.

- Daniel B




Post 102

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel, Rodney, Ed, Linz,

After all, it's your philosophy, not mine. So I'm more than willing to drop out of this forum myself ...
 
See ya!
 
Of course, I'm pretty sure you're lying. You could prove me wrong.

Regi


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 103

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 6:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings, all.

I just noticed the dust-up here.  I know Rodney is a busy man and takes his philosophy seriously.  I admire him for that.  I hope he reconsiders his decision.  I enjoy reading his contributions to this forum.

Regards,
Bill


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 104

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel:
"Ed, if your interpretation of Rodney's message is this off-base, I hold out little hope for your grasp of the trickier points of the argument."

Summary of Essentials: In a debate where you are trying to avoid being held accountable for your words and/or behavior, sift through the words of others to find any sub-optimal wording (or wording that can be twisted around and displayed as such). It does not matter whether the words are relevant to the point under consideration.

If you can draw another's focus off of the essential point being argued (spiteful humor helps in this regard), and shift focus toward the strategically-specific words you've selected, then you should be able to avoid having to directly answer any questions or be held responsible for behavior you've chosen (others only think as deeply as you do, so they will be easily tricked by this tactic).

You won't be discovered as a spiteful fool (even if you act that way, repeatedly) because remember, others must only have the same shallow-minded, half-wit understanding that you do.

If all else fails, use your powers of mental association (YOUR highest mental faculty) and remark that your "merely-apparent" evasion in the matter really depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is - this has worked for someone before, so it should work again for you (people don't learn to "pick-up" on shady tactics, they can be used repeatedly, and with reckless abandon).


Daniel:
"Charming! Actually, I've been as straightforward as I can explaining why Rodney's position is as silly as claiming the moon is made of green cheese - no matter how much pseudo-intellectual blab he's tied himself up in. Why should I accord such a position any "respect" at all? Who is he - Rodney Dangerfield?"

Summary of Essentials: If someone has made a remark about your insincere behavior, then start your reply with a condescending retort. And, by all means, don't seek to understand whether your behavior is sufficiently characterized as insincere (don't seek out ANY specific points or counterpoints - no, this is a time for sweeping generalizations, not critical examination).

It helps if you use words like "actually" to give the perception that you've examined the issue (others will be taken in by your apparent increase in concern). Then simply state the opposite view, and finish off with more spiteful humor (this will give the impression that you've settled the issue with finality).


Daniel:
"Oh grow up, the pair of you."

Summary of Essentials: If someone brings up debate of fundamentals, such as that of applying standards of truth or achievement toward the activity of debaters, then immediately react with condescension and DO NOT, by any means, address the issue with any hint of critical reasoning.

Remember, you are trying to draw on the emotions of others (not their reasoning skills), so keep it short and punchy - again, this gives the impression that you've actually thought about the issue and it's absolutely clear to you. This will work even if you've previously shown disdain for others who've made appeals to the human potential of gaining clarity on issues, or have previously shown visceral contempt for anything that smells like an "absolute."

The big plus here, however, is that it gives the impression that you really have made that fundamental human choice to think.

Ed

Post 105

Monday, August 9, 2004 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My objection was solely to the tone. That's it. I was asking for a certain level of moderation. Does DB mean that he would rather leave than not resort to his psychological tricks? In that case, I have no problem with his leaving or being blocked out.

But I would not support banning anyone for strongly arguing his position! I have said more than once on other threads that DB is one of most effective, and therefore healthy, critics of Objectivism here. I still think, silly me, that if I can calmly and rationally explain, I can throw that switch in his mind that will make him realize that he is often fighting a straw man.

The project is not to win debates with word tricks, but to look at reality and describe it truthfully. I get the impression that DB would agree with that! However, it is his epistemology that fails at this, and Rand's that succeeds. That's all I'll say on this thread.


Post 106

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed writes about DB:
>If all else fails, use your powers of mental association (YOUR highest mental faculty) and remark that your "merely-apparent" evasion in the matter really depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is - this has worked for someone before, so it should work again for you (people don't learn to "pick-up" on shady tactics, they can be used repeatedly, and with reckless abandon).

Well, this really says it all - if somewhat incoherently. According to Ed, when “all else fails”, I use the “shady tactic” of playing games with the meanings of words, such as “is”. I use this tactic “repeatedly and with reckless abandon” .

Truly, in the Missing-The-Point-Olympics, Ed takes the Gold. Lordamighty, man! (….pauses mid-post to slowly bang head several times on the desk…) what “tactic” do you think I’ve just spent most of the last couple of hundred posts exhaustively CRITICISING!? Find one example – just one in over 200 posts – where I’ve used such a method, other than for the express purpose of exposing the pointlessness of it! The case you cite above only exists in your imagination, nowhere else. I challenge you directly to find anything remotely similar, or in fact any place where I have claimed ANY position of mine "depends" on the meaning of ANY term - let alone “is”! (Of course, this has not stopped various dubious metaphysicians trying to use this tactic on me!)

To recap: spread over the last 200 posts, and on this thread too, I have
1) demonstrated the (first of three) serious logical problems with this method(eg: post 66 this thread)
2) supplied and explained a method of definition that avoids these problems (methodological nominalism, as opposed to methodological essentialism) (post 56)
3) supplied a method of argument that exposes the users of this tactic (ie: focussing arguments on proposals and problems, rather than the meanings of words) (p 56 again and pretty much everywhere else)

So, rather than using this intellectual “shady tactic” “repeatedly and with reckless abandon”, in fact I have NEVER used it, and have spent my time arguing extensively AGAINST it! Ed, I hope you can now see why I cannot take what you are saying remotely seriously.

Now the remaining question is this: what, if any, intellectual standards does Ed set himself when he decides to attack someone – especially when he declares them to be “evil” – and how honest is he in terms of facing up to his mistakes?

Or I suppose this could be just more of my infinite deviousness, spiteful cunning etc…;-)


Rodney writes:
>Does DB mean that he would rather leave than not resort to his psychological tricks?

Rodney, I completely reject the idea that requests like “Just a simple clear statement will do”, are “psychological tricks.”!!! I am just trying to get a straight answer out of you. Yet for some reason you would rather quit the forum than give one.

>The project is not to win debates with word tricks, but to look >at reality and describe it truthfully. I get the impression that >DB would agree with that!

Of course. But debates have to be two-sided in order for anyone to win at all (and for the nth time, I do not use “word tricks!”)I see little point in debating with someone who respects strongly argued positions but does not like to personally engage with them. By the way, thank you for your complimentary remarks – likewise as I said: from what I can make out of it, I believe your position is honestly mistaken.

Regi writes

>See ya! Of course, I'm pretty sure you're lying. You could prove me wrong.

Why would I lie? I haven’t posted anything else on any other thread, nor will I in future, just to be on the safe side vis a vis Rodney’s return to the forum. As I said, I bear him no ill will and do not wish to ruin his enjoyment of the forum, which I will apparently do even if I do not engage with him. That’s fine. It’s no big. Here I’ve just responded to posts aimed at me, just as my mother said I should speak when spoken to (I've been overseas for a few days, hence the delay). However, I doubt there is much left to say here anyway.

- Daniel B.





Post 107

Friday, August 13, 2004 - 1:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:
>If all else fails, use your powers of mental association (YOUR highest mental faculty) and remark that your "merely-apparent" evasion in the matter really depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is - this has worked for someone before, so it should work again for you (people don't learn to "pick-up" on shady tactics, they can be used repeatedly, and with reckless abandon).

DB:
Well, this really says it all - if somewhat incoherently. According to Ed, when “all else fails”, I use the “shady tactic” of playing games with the meanings of words, such as “is”. I use this tactic “repeatedly and with reckless abandon” .

Ed:
DB, you've fallen into my trap (well, sort of). Like a dragster with lots of power (of the analytical type) but little to guide it, or steer this power (such as, perhaps: a fundamental principle of noncontradictory integration?), all I have to do is to get you to "hit the gas" and then you go careening off into the guard rail ... a tumbling ball of flames and wreckage.

You did - in fact - do, as I would - and did - predict. You've found the weakest spot in my argument (like the good analytical, foundationless thinker that you are) and you've isolated it and abstracted it away from all else. I don't know whether to say "Bravo!" or just yawn and look at my watch.

The point you brought up was a mere analogy (explaining its "weakness"), which was used more for an illustrative purpose, than for any direct, univocal one. The referent of the analogy was Mr. Shady, himself: Slick Will Clinton (sex-scandal trial). I'm not sure that you picked up on this, but I would put it past you. I wasn't sure whether to leave this weak analogy in the post, but it has become a blessing in disguise (it validates "my take" on your modus operandi, and with such eloquence and finality - I could not have imagined).

As is more common than not, I find that your words are best understood when distilled of all the flamboyant nonessentials. Your response above (distilled) reads as such: According to Ed ... I use the ... tactic of playing games with the meanings of words. As I said above, the Clinton analogy was just that, so your inference here is a non sequitur. In this case however, I must say that the UNDISTILLED wording shines a brighter light on your guilt of fallacious reasoning - just as detailed lies are more clearly seen to be wrong than vague ones are.


DB:
Truly, in the Missing-The-Point-Olympics, Ed takes the Gold.

Ed:
Aaaagh, some more of the banter so characteristic of you DB. I admit I've even become comfortable with your predictable, though sarcastic, nature (and would be taken aback by a "suddenly-sincere" response from you). I feel a guilty sense of comfort and warmth, knowing what and how you will respond to things. Like I felt with my first Teddy Bear - with its prominent and stable features and fur that I could examine, and come back to, where I had left off the day before.


DB:
Lordamighty, man! (….pauses mid-post to slowly bang head several times on the desk…) what “tactic” do you think I’ve just spent most of the last couple of hundred posts exhaustively CRITICISING!?

Ed:
It's such a joy to watch you work, DB - after finding that weakest link which you have nominated as "someone's position." Enthroned for effect, you carefully calculate how to get the most "buck" for your "bang" in overthrowing the mighty opponent King.

I wonder, do you know (deep down) that you are playing a child's game - as I did with my GI Joes? A game where you know who the winner will be - because you've precisely picked the parameters entailing that desired outcome. I used to "give" MY GI Joes special powers (or at least special kung-fu "training"), in case it came down to a "man-to-man" fight with the enemy. I think you give yourself special powers DB, but the games you play are more important for the future of humanity (without a foundation, you may not see this).


DB:
Find one example – just one in over 200 posts – where I’ve used such a method, other than for the express purpose of exposing the pointlessness of it!

Ed:
Again, excellent work, but predictably pointless.


DB:
The case you cite above only exists in your imagination, nowhere else. I challenge you directly to find anything remotely similar, or in fact any place where I have claimed ANY position of mine "depends" on the meaning of ANY term - let alone “is”!

Ed:
Okay ... now I'm yawning.


DB:
To recap: spread over the last 200 posts, and on this thread too, I have
1) demonstrated the (first of three) serious logical problems with this method(eg: post 66 this thread)
2) supplied and explained a method of definition that avoids these problems (methodological nominalism, as opposed to methodological essentialism) (post 56)
3) supplied a method of argument that exposes the users of this tactic (ie: focussing arguments on proposals and problems, rather than the meanings of words) (p 56 again and pretty much everywhere else)

Ed:
And here is where Rodney's insights are beginning to "wear-off" on me. I am starting to actually believe that you actually believe these things. But don't you see that absolute precision is scorned by us both (and even by Rand)? Instead of acknowledging this, you keep insisting on throwing the "accurate" baby out with the "precise" bath-water (and "propose" other "problems" - such as the ring of scum left around the bathtub). Damnit DB, read my SOLO QUOTES quote on this issue of precision in philosophy (AS WELL AS THE THREAD BELOW IT).


DB:
So, rather than using this intellectual “shady tactic” “repeatedly and with reckless abandon”, in fact I have NEVER used it, and have spent my time arguing extensively AGAINST it! Ed, I hope you can now see why I cannot take what you are saying remotely seriously.

Ed:
I could see BEFORE why you "cannot take" what I'm saying seriously (I didn't need to see another straw-man fall in order to be blessed with such a profound insight).


DB:
Now the remaining question is this: what, if any, intellectual standards does Ed set himself when he decides to attack someone – especially when he declares them to be “evil” – and how honest is he in terms of facing up to his mistakes?

Ed:
A fair question, indeed. While my mistakes are few - and far between - I have, in over 200 posts in this forum, racked up my fair share (perhaps a dozen of them; clear and identifiable). In times like these, an example is in order.

Not too long ago, I presumed to be able to silence dissenters with rock-solid reasoning based on a firm, axiomatic foundation. Okay, so I got a little cocky. Claiming to be able to predict bankruptcy by applying Euclidean geometrics to torn dollar bills, if exchanged for full currency; I failed to integrate that serial numbers are printed on bills in positions that precisely thwart the mechanics I was employing for my attainment of certainty on the matter. When this fatal flaw in my reasoning had been pointed out to me, I promptly and graciously replied with full admission of error and promised not to do it again (for awhile, at least - lest I be sent into the corner, while the others get to play).

DB, I've made mistakes and owned up to them (and given a key example). I'm wondering: would you - will you - do the same?

Ed

Post 108

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 4:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed wrote:
>You did - in fact - do, as I would - and did - predict. You've found the weakest spot in my argument (like the good analytical, foundationless thinker that you are)....

Ed, imagine that I now write the following about you:

“If all else fails with his argument, Ed resorts to claiming ‘reality doesn’t exist’. He claims this repeatedly, and with reckless abandon”.

Naturally, you would reply that this is nonsense - that this is in fact the *opposite* of what you believe, and that you have *never* claimed that reality does not exist, let alone said it repeatedly and recklessly, and that this claim - which is central to your philosophy - is outrageously wrong, a whole 180 degrees from the truth.

I then say: “Ed, you have fallen into my trap! This response is just typical of the good Subjectivist thinker that you are, and in itself eloquently and finally validates my exposure of your modus operandi!”

Tell me honestly: if I said these things, would you be impressed by them? Or would you “abstract” from these remarks that underneath my bluster, I hadn’t the faintest idea about your philosophy or grasp of your arguments? On this basis would you take any of my *other* remarks seriously, or would you just laugh and shake your head in disbelief ?

Likewise, your "analogy" to Bill Clinton's quibbling over the word "is" (which yes, I didn't get at the time) is not a "weak" one: it is a FALSE one. I have NEVER said anything like it. It has NO resemblance to the situation. Ok?

Look, I’m really not sure how you’ve managed to get this all so, um, bass-ackwards. And it's not just on this point. For instance, you obviously think Karl Popper was an “analytic” philosopher. Yeah right...and Ayn Rand founded the philosophy of Subjectivism! I quote Popper scholar Rafe Champion:

”...The  heartland of Anglo-Saxon philosophy has been  dominated for most of the century by the loosely defined analytical schools inspired  by Russell,  Moore and Wittgenstein.  Popper's work has negligible appeal to philosophers in that tradition  because  *he has  systematically  refused  to be drawn  into  arguments  about words,  or  into conceptual and linguistic analysis*...." (emphasis mine)

You may read the rest of the essay here: http://www.therathouse.com/popobjectknow.html 

I suppose it is possible to gain this wrong impression about Popper through "skimming" the subject secondhand. But it is entirely *contrary* to the facts; just as the suggestion that I’m using “analytic” arguments is. Actually, my arguments are *anti*-analytic!

Seriously, Ed: I think you’ve just got a hold of the wrong end of the stick - Big Time! I'm not even annoyed about it now, or taking it personally. It appears to be some kind of massive SNAFU going on. The way you are portraying my position is *false*, top to bottom. Worst of all, on this mistaken basis you're calling me " evil" - something I've never called anyone on this or any other forum, even though there are a couple of people here I have no time for. Think it all through, then get back to me. All apologies will be received graciously, and 100% non-sarcastically!

Ed continues:
>DB, I've made mistakes and owned up to them (and given a key example). I'm wondering: would you - will you - do the same?

Being a Popperian means I am also a fallibilist. This means I know that I will inevitably make mistakes. More, they will not be “few and far between” like yours - I think I will make *plenty* of them! I have absolutely no problem admitting it when I do. For example:

>Post 94 A Pre-emptive Dialectic etc..
>DB writes:
>I seem to have confused everyone with my little attempt to play the pedant...Oh well; this is my blunder, and will take it on the chin and do my best to clear it up, and try and get my point across better.

- Daniel B

Post 109

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I had paid no attention to this thread, since Daniel's Popperian epistemology is something I have no regard for, as he knows ... till it was drawn to my attention that Rodney was upset by Daniel to the point of wanting to leave."

I think that's the operative phrase here. It's "DANIELS Popperian epistemology". We see this more and more. An abuse of Popper. The use of his most foolish ideas whereas (I would say at least) there is a lot within Poppers work that was worthwhile.

In fact I thought he was MY GUY (putting up strong cases for the open society, and against historicism, against dubious science, and for limited government) so it was suprising to me that he has been taken up by the left. And some of his worst ideas (the bizzare oppostion to induction) are being used along with a very strange take on other ideas of Poppers.

Daniels reasoning and other examples of what we might call "Bad Popper" just strikes me as a variation of philosophy-boy 101 obstructionism that you get with a lot of undergraduates who use philosophical conventions to nitpick ideas they don't like. But who are not then the least bit backward in coming forward when it comes to various conformist leftist ideas they prefer.

When it comes to mainstream leftism the bully-boy advocates of the intellectual status quo treat these ideas as if they were self-evident. As if it were an offence to argue against them. An offense immediately relegating one to some sort of benighted lower class where normal rules of engagement are not necessary. Where any rules may be applied differently for such grubby individuals then for themselves.

But Daniel, not being an undergraduate can take this nuisance factor a lot further.

My guess is that when Daniel sees that I've joined in here he will likely make himself scarce. I basically tracked him here to see if I could stop him from being so evasive and arrogant elsewhere. When you go on the offensive and ask these guys to account for their own ideas its amazing how long and with such dedication they can sustain their evasiveness.

I shall link an Australian blog to show everyone exactly what I'm talking about. I'm on moderation on this thread since I drew a lot of fire from a bunch of leftist Popperian bully-boy advocates of the intellectual status quo and I always hit back very fiercely and with much ridicule. (I think its good policy to match contempt with ridicule)

I used to attract this swarming left-winger handball of snide comments from blinkered leftists who didn't seem to have enough pride to ever make their comebacks reasonable. Any comeback would do no matter how foolish. They try and drown you by the sheer weight of snideness. But once it becomes clear that this is never going to work and that you are beating them like Phar Lap at a donkey derby they whack you on moderation and begin to get all evasive.

So here is the link which will show Daniels evasiveness. Though I tried and tried and used everything I could muster to shame the guy into making a case he always managed to sissy out of it.

Perhaps my fellow posters at this site can draw him out more on his own ideas.

I must warn objectivists ahead of them going to this thread, that though I'm indebted to Rands good works, I would not consider myself a Randian. (But I'm open to reasoned argument on that score as well of course.)

Here's the link. It's the second half which degenerated into Daniels dodging and misrepresentation. Along with me trying all I could to get him to back up his arguments. So to cut to the chase one would probably want to take in the last quarter of the thread. And then go back to the rest of it if you aren't bored silly.

http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=1604#comments

Post 110

Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Graeme, Daniel Barnes no longer posts here and hasn't for quite some time. He was kicked off last October.

- Bill

Post 111

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 10:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for that. I was trying to draw him out here because he kept dodging on the other site.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 112

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Graeme,

I sent you a private RoR message about that several days ago. Look in the upper left had corner when you log on and click on the link to get to it.

Michael


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


User ID Password or create a free account.