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 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion,

" He can -- and will -- do as he pleases with it."

Certainly. No one is disputing this. But that one can do something does not mean it is a good idea. I am fully within my rights to chug a gallon of vodka to my head, but that does not mean it is a good idea. Ditto for Linz's argumentative style.

Post 41

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 4:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Both MH and myself have both been labled Saddamites and yet MH and I have had many open and frank disagreements. Actually I think he has been rather more defensive of Lindsays' position than I think he felt comfortable. He was always polite in his responses to me and I enjoyed his contributions. Lindsay on the other hand is destroying all he has built. This saddens me greatly. Until this Iraq war revealed his inner prejudices I believed Linz to be one of the great intellectuals of our time. He had exceptional talent and energy as well as beautiful diction and communication. I admit he has done more for freedom than most of us will ever do. I think it is because Linz shone so brightly that I hate recent events so much.  

Moving on to the offending topic, I would like to comment on Cresswells conclusions about the effectiveness of a none state organised defence. I would think that it was obvious from the ongoing Iraq war that it was the none organised defence that was more effective than the Iraqi state version. It is the decentralised armed militia that inflicts the greatest damage upon the enemy. This fact supports liberty theory and the freedom to carry arms. Saddams large conscript army was a dismal failure.


Post 42

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 2:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

No6, you say that the Iraq war revealed Lindsay's "prejudices." In his article, "The Matter of Matt," he gave five detailed reasons for his conviction that it was right to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Before you speak of "prejudices," surely you have an obligation to present your objections to Lindsay's reasons. If you fail to do so, it is you who will convict yourself of being prejudiced.

Barbara

Post 43

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 2:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ms. Branden,

Duly noted.  I sincerely apologize for mischaracterizing your statement.  By itself, it did appear to be an unqualified assertion.  However, though it was one of the things I had in mind, it was not the only one.  I was referring to assertions that those who disagree with the US strategy and tactics in Afghanistan and/or Iraq are somehow anti-American, pro-terrorism, or a "Saddamite".  I especially disagree with that label since I was in the front lines fighting against terrorism while most people here did little but sit on their ass talking about it, and the only "Saddamites" I know killed or maimed some of the good men I served with.

I will have to re-read what has been said on the issue of homosexuality at some point in the future because, at this point, I do not agree that a subconscious or unconscious, even if it did exist, should be an an excuse for behavior that we do in fact have control of.  And, by the way, I do think that includes sexual behavior.  One of the principles of Objectivism is that emotions are not tools of cognition and that reason is our only absolute.  To say otherwise opens the doors to excuse any behavior, as some obese people do when they claim they cannot help but overeat because of their genes.

By the way, I want to make it clear that when I said the part about being treated with dignity and respect, I was referring to Matthew, Robert Bisno, and Logan Feys, among others.  I think it is unfortunate that they and along with others whose intelligence I respect have been discouraged from continuing their participation in this forum by the unwarranted ad hominem attacks.

Byron


Post 44

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In reply to Ms. Branden's most recent post, and Mr. Perigo's article, there have been refutations to his arguments.  I think the most important one, though, is his second point, that we do not owe Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt.  I was one of those men who believed, prior to our invasion, that we were going in there to stop a madman from unleashing weapons of mass destruction to terrorist cells.  More and more, it appears that belief was wrong.  It was based on flaw intelligence that stemmed from systemic problems with our intelligence agencies.  How hard is it to admit that we were wrong and that we are stuck in what could be a quagmire?  The military is trained, equipped, and organized to respond to two MRC, or Major Regional Contingencies.  Most of the military is in Afghanistan and Iraq now, and yet it appears we have not committed enough personnel and equipment there.  What happens now if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, or North Korea decides to move against South Korea, or the Arabs grow tired of Israel's existence and step up their support of Palestine?

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 4:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lots of comments.

To Jonathan and Scott, you both either missed my point, or ignored it.  What was Lindsay's crime?  He was rude?  Aren't you being rude?  I'm not excusing Lindsay's behavior, although I do think MH was picking a fight, and has been for months.  But why is it that you two think that you're being civil?  Scott in particular has just accused me of evasion and potentially being an asshole.  If civility and getting along is really your goal, have you picked the appropriate means?

I do think Lindsay overreacted to MH.  I told him so privately, to try to keep it civil an non-confrontational.  I do think the direction of his reaction was proper...MH was picking a fight, was insulting, and wasn't going to let it go despite Lindsay's attempts to keep things nice.  I would be upset if Lindsay continued to be friendly.  The magnitude of the reaction was off.  There are much more offensive people on this site who deserve that kind of treatment.  And as I said publicly, it's because they were so close that the feelings are so profound.

How did you approach it?  You attack him publicly.  You throw your own insults.  You try to escalate the war.  And you claim to do it in the name of civility.  But if you're allowed to be uncivil, why isn't Lindsay?  As I said, if that's your problem, Barbara did a much better job.  You should view her as a role model.

Robert, you have a short memory.  If you read the thread in question, you can see that Lindsay had "told someone he disagreed with them without resorting to name calling, personal insults, ad hominem statements, and worse."  The first response to MH was thoughtful, well articulated, polite, and reasonable.  Maybe you're short memory comes from your own hatred of Lindsay.  I don't see why you do.  Everyone was disgusted with your animal torturing view.  Why single him out?

Brendan, don't you ever get tired of being wrong?  "Sadly, as history has shown, the tactic works – Lindsay has everyone dancing to his tune as they scramble to escape the smear".  Yeah...MH obviously was trying to avoid it.  And all of the people on this thread are obviously jumping to conform.  I guess you're just so much smarter than everyone else, you're the only one who's willing to stand up to Lindsay.

Barbara, first I'm glad you agree it's okay to respond in a rude way.  And of course, it is optional as you say.  Now, you think MH was pushed to his limits.  I'm going to guess that Lindsay was too.  MH was rude.  Lindsay was rude back.  My problem here is those people who are leaping to MH's defense without considering that he started that fight, and tried to keep it going.  What  possible outcome did he expect from it?  Did he expect, after insulting Lindsay several times in one post, after Lindsay had attempted to be polite and calm things down, that Lindsay would quietly accept the insults?

And more importantly, do you really think MH's behavior is entirely justified?

Cass, your mouth is pretty foul these days.  I take it you've learned that from your new website.  I find it laugable that you think Regi is polite and friendly.  He wants to be a curmudgeon.  He attacks people all the time just to prove that he's above petty feelings like "generosity" and "consideration". Obviously you've learned to emulate him.

I agree with Barbara.  I can't take him seriously.  He equivocates all the time.  See my marriage article discussion where he jumps back and forth between saying marriage is just a deep love and a legal state.  See his own views on homosexuality where he claims "normal" is not a moral term, and is a moral term.  See my Fundamental Premises article where he claims that "bad philosophy" is not philosophy, and only that which is true is really philosophy, while using the term everywhere in the standard way.  He tries to make the term "concept" mean both an abstraction and a concrete, setting up for further equivocations.  He claims he doesn't argue because he's above it all, and then argues constantly.  He "wins" the arguments by changing his definitions partway through (equivocating).  Look through his posts to see how often he has his own unique definition that he doesn't share until it's obvious he's losing the argument (which he never has).  No, I'm not impressed.

One more comment on politeness, since it seems to come up.  I fear the day that a ruthless kill tries to destroy the world, but always speaks in a civilized tongue.  How many Objectivists would flock to him and say "Well, he is a murderer, but he's so polite!  He never yells at me!".  We saw this with the fascist conservative on this site.  He wants the state to ban abortion, drugs, euthanasia, and single parenthood, just for starters.  His views are truly repugnant.  And yet he says it in an allegedly polite way.  What's the result?  People worshipped him.  I guess all Hitler had to do to convince every to try to appease him was to smile a lot and shake hands.  "I'm going to conquer your country.  You don't mind do you?  It would be terribly inconvenient if we had to fight about it.". 

Are people here really so concerned with style that they can't see through it to the substance? I'm not dismissing style.  But is it really what comes first?  Is someone really considered rational if they thoughtfully explain why reality doesn't exist?  Is someone really considered friendly if they politely and peacefully work to bring about your destruction?  Are the Greens bad because they're hoodlums, or because their ideas would bring about widespread death and destruction?


Post 46

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 3:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron writes:
>How hard is it to admit that we were wrong and that we are stuck in what could be a quagmire? 

Byron hits the nail on the head. Everyone seems to have forgotten that morality aside, it was essential that the crucial post-invasion period needed to be both competently planned and strategically sound. Given the divergence between the administration's cheery scenarios of the outcome prior to the war, and the grim reality we face today, it was clearly neither.Being morally correct is cold comfort if you've ended up with one foot in a meat grinder. Hence discussions of the morality of the invasion are increasingly academic. The urgent issue now is clearly: what's the plan, guys? And by what standards are we going to judge its success or failure?

- Daniel



Post 47

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara:

I agree with you but I did answer Linz' questions one by one. See above.

In essence, for a philosophy with a basic tenet of opposition to the "initiation of force," and considering that Saddam Hussein’s regime was never a threat to America, one might have expected to find Objectivists in the forefront of opposition to the war against Iraq. There are doubtless many men and women of Objectivist persuasion who see the contradictions between their philosophy and the state’s most ambitious program of power, namely the war system. But that so many other Randians can eagerly defend such butcherous practices reveals a logical error in Randian objectivism. That freedom and a forcibly payed for standing state army can coincide. The end result of this error is increasing state power, corruption and death. Objectivism (As described by both Barbara and Linz ) it seems has lost respect for each individual instead defending the proposition that men and women may rightfully suffer because of their collective identity with an 'offending' state. Osama shares the same view.


Post 48

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Number Six, who is perhaps either a number or an erstwhile free man, said: "I would think that it was obvious from the ongoing Iraq war that it was the [non-]organised defence that was more effective than the Iraqi state version. It is the decentralised armed militia that inflicts the greatest damage upon the enemy."

Well, if you're saying that anarchic banditry can be destructive, I think you're right. It is: bloody destructive!

If it's defence of your liberty that's wanted then neither the "Iraqi state version" nor the "decentralised armed militia" cut it against a real opponent, now do they. And the anarchic banditry leaves everyone's head at risk - it is, literally, a pure expression of anarchism in action: out-and-out man-hating, nihilistic gang warfare.

Liberty it ain't. Wishing it were otherwise is the rationalism Reisman decried.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
Cass, your mouth is pretty foul these days
Joe if you can find a post of mine that uses the kind of language that gets posted on this forum, or calls people the kind of insulting names that frequently appear here, then please do point them out and I will apologise for having posted while very drunk.  It would appear that by saying anything that the ruling clique here disagree with, one has a "foul mouth".
With regard to Regis' philosophical position, he does tend to develop argument as he writes, which can appear to be equivocation. I don't agree with all of Regis points, but I do know that my viewpoint will always be treated with respect and courtesy. His viewpoint is always argued with intelligence, reason, and based on basic principles and axioms which are Objectivist. All of the articles posted at www.theautonomist are intelligent and interesting. And his website is free of the sort of sophomoric idiocy that frequents this one. And thats fine. Its your site, you welcome youngsters - and this is my major beef with it. Not the youngsters, but that I believe many are being led to believe that this site is the epitome of the truth of what Objectivism is, when much of what is posted and claimed here is far from that. An "if it feels good, do it" is not Objectivism as I understand it from Rands writings. Ad hominen argument is not Objectivism. And speaking of human beings as objects is not Objectivism.
 
Barbara, Regi has stated to you that your claim that he posts other peoples' work as his own is a slander, and has made absolutely clear that all contributors to his site do so of their own free will.- and under their own names.
And I finally find it absolutely outrageous that you can take my post to someone who was obviously as disgusted by another perigo outburst as I - that it is his right ot be as disgusting as he likes on his own site, but if they are looking for another Objectivist site where this does not happen, then here it is,- as an exuse to rubbish someone who you have prevented from posting here to defend himself, well, whats' left to say? QED I think. 



Post 50

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 9:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Correction: tha last line above should read "who has been prevented from posting here".  I didn't mean to imply that BBranden was personally responsible for the prevention.
Cass


Post 51

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 12:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please see my post below on the "Well then, fuck off" thread.

Linz

Post 52

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 1:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

You said this:
Certainly. No one is disputing this. But that one can do something does not mean it is a good idea. I am fully within my rights to chug a gallon of vodka to my head, but that does not mean it is a good idea. Ditto for Linz's argumentative style.
Well, to be perfectly honest, although I do rankle a bit at Linz's occasional explosions, I do have them myself, and I consider them justifiable when supported by conviction.  The only reason it's particularly scary with Linz, is that he controls this website, and I suppose we labor under the belief that those who have the power should be impartial.

But I have outgrown that notion.  This is his clubhouse.  And what's more, I completely, enthusiastically, and even rabidly agree with his stance on Saddam Hussein and the War in Iraq.


Post 53

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 2:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Post 51

Thursday, November 4 - 12:40amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Please see my post below on the "Well then, fuck off" thread.
QED

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 12:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to respond to a couple of good points made by Joe.

First, I do NOT think Joe is an asshole, and I apologize to Joe and anyone who took it that way--it was a poorly phrased post. What I really meant is that everyone is capable of a slip of passion wherein they do or say something that was, perhaps, ill-advised. People who believe that everything they do is correct and proper, and work backwards from there to rationalize it, can certainly be jerks. I do not think Joe is an 'evader' in the classical Objectivist sense, but is maybe being a bit evasive on this particular issue.

Second--what is Linz's crime? Being rude? His posts and tone are more than rude at times. They are outrageously insulting and provocative, and intentionally ignore distinctions which responders point out--Chris S's and MH's explanation of why they are not "Saddamites" even per Linz's definition is one example. Distinctions are ignored and once-categorized, always cetegorized. Wouldn't a respected person doing that bother anyone? Wouldn't civil posts garnering contempt and insults get to anyone after awhile? Doesn't Linz ~instigate~ the double-plus rude exchanges? Words can actually be ~more~ inflamatory and insulting than a slap across the face. Words are recorded ideas and ideas are man's stock in trade. By all means, say what you mean, but do not bring a sledgehammer to a dinner party. Doing so ignores both context and benevolence and their important roles in living a good life.

Third, Joe, I have to admit, you are correct. I should have sent Linz a private email. I lost my temper a bit, because I have seen this happen repeatedly. I was rude. And in public, which was not particularly benevolent of me. But Linz's castigation of MH was public. I think we can probably agree that this became rather a public issue before my post. So whether a public post was appropriate in the face of a public outburst is one that honest people may disagree upon. But, I agree with Barbara that using force after force has already been wrongfully initiated, may be appropriate. I also agree that hers was the very model of tact and style. She is seems to always post with those, admirably.

Fourth, I do not know if I am now supposed to be one of the "anti-Linz cabal" or not. I can assure you, I am not. You see, I never would have gotten along with Ayn Rand if I met her in person. Because the minute she bullied someone, or God forbid, tried to bully me, or the minute she tried to pull the "I'm infallible" nonsense, it would have been a deal-breaker. No matter how radiant, brilliant, or charming she was. That stuff doesn't wash. Linz's blanket response of 'fuck-off' in response to this stuff doesn't wash, either.

Fifth, we need to keep context clear here. If the context is substance, heck, those horses have been beaten to death. Everyone who can read knows and appreciates Linz's position as well as MH's and Dr. Chris'. But as I wrote before--either benevolence is an issue in dealing with others, or it is not. If it is, I do not understand why you, me, Dr. Chris, or anyone else lets Linz off with his initiation of rude, insulting name-calling, with his stock argument, essentially, that if you cannot take the heat, you are a wuss. You will note that many people who disagree with Linz manage to keep their responses fairly civil even after he breaks out the name calling and stops engaging the argument itself.

If this phenomena was singular, you write it off. When it happens repeatedly, and the principal is called on the issue, we have to weight the validity of his response. Linz's response is that he is supremely confident that his was the correct position, that those who disagree are (insert always witty and cleverly conceived name-calling here), and, that those who take exception are wusses, and they can just fuck off.

Here's the problems with this response.

1. It doesnt address the benevolence issue at all. Wasn't Matt a ~co-moderator~ of SOLO? Didn't Matt deserve ~some~ consideration above that of a stranger? In fact, I'll bet you a nickle that Matt and Linz agree on fully 90% of all political, social and philosophical issues. I have to honestly say that Linz's words in some of his posts are those reserved for mortal enemies, not those with whom one agrees. Do we get Linz's integration of the virtue of benevolence with his conduct? No.

2. There is seemingly no room in his response to even contemplate the remote possibility that he was mistaken or ill-advised in any degree in his conduct. This is Ayn Rand/ARI legacy stuff--the idea that the more 'one' with Objectivism you are, the more perfect your every word, thought, and deed. I respect confidence tremendously. I lose some measure of respect for people for whom it appears that there is no instrospection--that ego demands righteous defense of any conduct. Now, one may retort that a confident man need not display any hesitation. At some point, this ideal needs to be reconciled with the value of analyzing what your are doing or have done. Does his response show evidence of an honest evaluation of his actions, in context of the disfavor shown by: (1) SOLO's Executive Director' (2) Esteemed Writer-In-Residence; (3) Triple D, to say nothing of others who have been amongst his staunchest supporters (um, me)? Or does it seem more like a stock response, identical to other responses in similar situation, other than for the clever names he devises for his detractors?

So, there you have it. I have to end by reiterating that, in the grand scheme of things, whether Linz flies off the handle or not; or whether he calls people bad names or not; or whether he is somewhat abusive in his dealings with his supporters are of VERY LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE, especially in the context of his enormous contributions. He ~is~ SOLO and the FreeRad, for the luvva Galt. The main thing that bothers me about this is that this conduct is not singular, which leads me to believe that he either has not analyzed it, or has analyzed it and refuses to change. The best thing a friend can ever do for you is help you correct an error in thinking. It's the gift that keeps on giving for the rest of your life.

Post 55

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 3:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter Creswell:

You raise some interesting points that I think go right to the heart of the matter.

You stated: 'If it's defence of your liberty that's wanted then neither the "Iraqi state version" nor the "decentralised armed militia" cut it against a real opponent'.

also: 'And the anarchic banditry leaves everyone's head at risk - it is, literally, a pure expression of anarchism in action: out-and-out man-hating, nihilistic gang warfare'.

I do agree that in a one on one fight no army can stand toe to toe with the US military. The US spends more on military spending than all other nations combined. (This fact alone should raise some questions). This is a fact regardless of whether it is an armed militia or a 'real army'. So I guess we agree that the US certainly is a 'real opponent'. If it is defence of my liberty that's wanted against a US aggression I admit that I am in serious trouble, but I don't think that a standing army would help my plight. In fact it may further increase my peril by drafting me to the front line to defend 'freedom'!

Furthermore, the insurgent militia is growing more successful in their attacks on the US. Indeed latest claims by some rebels that they have acquired chemical weapons and are preparing to use them against U.S. forces in the besieged Sunni stronghold of Falluja demonstrates the advantages of a decentralised system of defence which emphasises individual flare resulting in  more rapid tactical improvements. Just the same as the improved service provision by private companies over Government ones.

Regarding your second point. I would argue that since there is no one world government (thank God) then the relationship between states is essentially anarchistic. With tens of thousands dead in Iraq and Afgahnistan I do see the latest war as a pure expression of state anarchism in action with out-and-out man hating.

Nihilistic gang warfare describes the US foreign policy rather well. 



Post 56

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 9:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine, you wrote, about Regi Firehammer: "He desires not to convert the world (he has not the power), but to have the philosophic basis for his intolerance respected so that he can respect his own fears and hatreds."

This is extremely well put, and I am in full agreement.

Barbara



Post 57

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 9:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron, you wrote: "I do not agree that a subconscious or unconscious, even if it did exist, should be an an excuse for behavior that we do in fact have control of."

To the very best of my knowledge, in all the recent long discussions of homosexuality, no one -- certainly not I -- ever said this.

I do agree with you that disagreements with US strategy does not, by itself, justify claims of "anti-Americanism, pro-terrorism, or a Saddamite."

Barbara

Post 58

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Cass, you wrote: "Barbara, Regi has stated to you that your claim that he posts other peoples' work as his own is a slander, and has made absolutely clear that all contributors to his site do so of their own free will.- and under their own names"

I did not state that he posts other peoples' work as his own or not under their own names. I said that I did not believe he had permission to post all of the articles by other people that compose his web site, and I strongly objected to his own copyright notices appearing under the articles of many of them.

If this was not so, then, when I cited, as only one example, Rand's "By Our Most Grievous Fault," did he remove it immediately?

Post 59

Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 9:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Cass, you wrote: "And I finally find it absolutely outrageous that you can take my post to someone who was obviously as disgusted by another perigo outburst as I -"

I have no idea who or what you're referring to. Do you care to explain?

Barbara

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


User ID Password or create a free account.