RoR: Forum

Jeanine,

You are not an Objectivist. The only real respect you have is to total, unhindered freedom, and you only pay lip-service to respecting reason and rational, evidence-based conclusions.

You are a mystic and an anarchist and a whim-worshipping fascist for promoting these, and nothing more. Since you arrived here, your mission has been to "sympathetically bully" everyone into accepting your witch-doctor perspective, out of fear of you publicly labelling them a "fascist" who doesn't really respect freedom. You and your politically-correct goon squad of pseudo-Objectivists have done everything within your oily power to take over this website and comandeer and subvert its purpose.

Well, your sleazy free ride is over. Maybe everyone else here is too hypnotized by your "freedom-babble", but I'm not.

This website is called SOLO... it stands for Sense of Life Objectivists... not Sense of Life Liberal Anarchist Voodoo Mystics.

Every single one of your posts ends with some rambling homage to some ridiculous pagan, mystic rubbish, and I'm not going to let you continue being here and denouncing my existence in this forum a serious fight. I belong here... you sure as hell don't.

I put this question to every single person at this site: Is this an Objectivist website, or is it a Libertarian website?

Because there most definitely is a difference, as I've said before, and as we're seeing now. Libertarianism in the proper sense, is only about freedom... It does not necessarily have to be about reason. Libertarianism and Objectivism are not the same things.

Libertarianism is to Objectivism, as a rectangle is to a square. The second member of each pair is a subform of the other. A square is a special type of rectangle that has all sides of each length, and Objectivism is a special type of Libertarianism, that has a mandatory clause of reason.

Until we don't see or admit that distinction, these conflicts will always arise.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/10, 1:31pm)

Post 21

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 1:40pm

"You are a mystic and an anarchist and a whim-worshipping fascist for promoting these, and nothing more"

An anarchist and a fascist? Come again? If you have a beef with Jeanine, fine, but at least be coherent about what your beef is?

Post 22

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 2:24pm

It is not my policy to respond to hatred, and I shall not do so. I merely publically note what everyone here knows: that I have not presented myself as an Objectivist, have never hidden my own divergent ideas, which I note explicitly in my profile; I have praised Objectivism where the judgement of my own mind and my sight of this world has agreed with it; where I have disagreed, I have presented my reasons or asked no one to concede anything for the sake of my own beliefs. If others have found value in what I have said as an individual with her own mind, that is their choice and benefit; if they have not, I harm no one by presenting views that differ and which they are free or not to judge for themselves. And I claim nothing contrary to Objectivism by naming principles of human rights and universal reason which condemn genocide and bigotry. I stand that the name and any philosophy of Enlightenment does not belong to hatred and genocide. If that is a consensus that Objectivism cannot reach, then I stand on the sovereign validity of my own mind that it is Objectivism and not myself which has betrayed such fundamental principles of liberal humanism that as a philosophic movement it has declared intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

- Jeanine Shiris Ring ))(*)((

Post 23

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 2:27pm

Jeanine, sometimes it seems to be true that "no good deed goes unpunished."

Barbara

Post 24

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 4:03pm

I am disgusted that Orion's venomous posts still freely appear at this forum.

Post 25

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 8:06pm

Hey, Orion can argue his point vehemently if he wants.

But I think it is interesting that he has engaged none of Jeanine's arguments, other that to point out that she is not an Objectivist. I think I did so on another thread, but in an even less-friendly way (no fear--we have patched up our differences).

SO what? Who cares if she isnt an Objectivist? Does the fact that she isn't and never claimed to be other than a camp follower validate advocating a Holocaust?
(Edited by Scott DeSalvo on 11/10, 8:07pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 8:26pm

Burt Bacharach says "What the world needs now is love, sweet love." But I think it's a lot closer to the truth to say "respect, damned respect." No matter how much passion and fury one might feel in any given discussion, there's a vital need to spend most of one's time and effort in engaging the actual arguments of the other person. One shouldn't commit oneself too much to engaging in ad hominem attacks or being a "troll."

Post 27

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 11:43pm

And I think it's an abomination that someone with such an adamantine skull as Hong Zhang, would plague me with her incessantly frontal lobe-less, droning comments.

Post 28

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 11:50pm

Jeanine, sometimes it seems to be true that "no good deed goes unpunished."

Ah, such a beautifully heroic sentiment... You know, my eyes are misting up. Really they are.

But, you know... I wonder if such downtrodden and inspirational sentiments of melodramatic bathos were even utterable by the followers of, say, The Nathaniel Branden Institute, under the whips, jack-boots, and even high heels of its topmost enforcers during the 1950's and 60's... And who would those enforcers have been again, for the historical record?

So, please... Talk to me some more of oppression, and the abuse of power, without conscience or restraint. It interests me... really it does.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/10, 11:58pm)

Post 29

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:08am

Again...whaaaaaat the bleeding hell?!?!?!? SOLO got dumb on me while I was away!

Post 30

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:33am

Poor Jeanine...

"She" still thinks it's okay to play the "poor, oppressed victim" here.

"She" hopes nobody will notice her strategy of disabling human critical judgment under the guise of "tolerance", so that she is more free to remake the world in her own image, with no objections or resistance whatsoever from the "masses".

Tears For Fears once sang that "Everybody Wants to Rule the World"... How right they were.

Post 31

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:33am

Maybe Jeanine fears that if we start going after psychopathic murderers such as Muslims, that the next "logical" step is to start going after harmless cross-dressers who physically threaten nobody.

Explain the logic in that slippery slope mentality, if you can. It's apples and oranges.

Pa-ra-noi-a, will des-troy-ya!

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/11, 12:45am)

Post 32

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:46am

You know, Orion, you seem to have a tendency toward conspiracy theories. First you suspect that all muslims, even the "sane" ones, are in on radical islam, as part of some manner of good-cop/bad-cop routine, and now you accuse Jeanine of trying to "disabling human critical judgment under the guise of "tolerance", so that she is more free to remake the world in her own image, with no objections or resistance whatsoever from the "masses"."

I disagree with a lot of what comes out of Madame Ring's mouth, but this is ridiculous. Jeanine is not trying to take over the world, or SOLO, or anything else by use of manipulating people with political correctness baiting. I actually thought your views on islam, while extreme, had something to them and were worthy of more respect than the blanket condemnations you were being given, but now you're starting to sound, well, paranoid.

Post 33

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:54am

Robert,

Nice try, playing the "paranoia" card. Is your side here really that desperate?

As we all well know, in all "paranoia" accusations, only one possibility is allowed: either the person is paranoid, or those around him actually are untrustworthy... In other words, either person "A" is crazy, or person "B" is a liar.

So let's drop the facade. All of us here know that what's really occurring is a very ugly social dynamic called scapegoating.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/11, 1:00am)

Post 34

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 1:10am

"My side"??

Hold up here. What are you talking about?

I barely read Jeanine's posts. when I do read them, I often disagree with them.
I think that your comments about her are out of line and sound ridiculous and i'm all of sudden in league with her?

Ok........

Post 35

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 1:19am

"�All of us here�know that what's really�occurring�is a very ugly social dynamic called scapegoating."

Let us differentiate between scapegoating or attacks or condemnation, on one hand, and ideological disagreement on the other. Hong Zang's reaction toward you is clearly the first type of post. Jeanine certainly seems more like the second.

Post 36

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 1:31am

Well, if you often disagree with her as you say, then how ridiculous can my comments about her really be, since they all pertain to how disagreeable "her" perspective on things is...

And if there's anyone here that I see as paranoid and ridiculous, it's Jeanine... The entire core of "her" objection to my stance, reveals itself as a fear that "ooooh, the Nazi stormtroopers are coming to kick down her door next, and make her wear blue jeans!!!"

I mean, read the quote she posted in the main forum, with all the Holocaust hysterics. It's the kind of melodrama statement that people just itch to use someday, and they're just waiting for anything resembling a "golden opportunity" to do so, regardless of how completely different the situation actually is.

Post 37

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 2:31am

Orion, you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, instead of climbing out.

Post 38

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 6:18am

Orion, Try and be Orion Reasoner. I've ceratinly never battled with you before and have no secret alliance with Jeanine Ring, Barbara Branden, or anyone else for that matter. You have taken an irrational violent stance that can't be backed up with Objectivist philosophy. Would you expect us all to succumb to your "there all in on it so kill them mentality" while having personal experiences that contradict your claim? You can't then back that up with "well, when the time comes all those people will drop their facade of friendship and stab you." What you have suggested is out there. Accept that or show evidence that were all wrong.

Post 39

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 7:35am