RoR: Forum

Derek,

I'm mostly in agreement with your posts on this thread, but regarding the animal rights stuff, in fairness to Robert it does seem to me as though he was talking about using meat for food. Or have I missed something?

Edited to add: I guess Robert's actual choice of words could have been better.
MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 6/24, 12:05pm)

Post 41

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:34pm

Hmmmmmm - of course Linzy has a dog - doesn't he rub it down every nite?

Post 42

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:16pm

Scott DeSalvo wrote:

This has evolved into such a strange place. My 'bullshit' detector goes into overdrive when I see people falling all over themselves to thank Barbara in the most effusive of praise, even though her article is spot on. There is something unsettling in it.

Yes.

Or those who come on, confrontational and almost thug-like when others present their views (which seem to be that some criticism is warranted, which would essentially AGREE with Barbara's article). Again, unsettling.

As a confrontational thug, I should hit you with my blackjack for saying that I essentially agree.

... SOLO is still, by far, the best thing going.

We must say this, of course, again and again and again, lest we be accused of SOLO-bashing.

But I am finding myself shaking my head silently at the screen more and more.

Yes. Of course, my heads shakes at the SOLO screen just about as much as it shakes at the human race in general.

Advocates of reason are, in general, just about as emotionalistic, self-contradictory, irrational, and downright absurd as any randomly-selected group of their peers, even though the latter have probably not uttered the word "logic" once within the last decade.

This thread is living proof. That's why our heads are shaking, Mr. DeSalvo--theirs at us, of course, and ours at them.

Nathan "The Thug" Hawking

Post 43

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:37pm

Matthew wrote:

Nathan,

First, Robert Bisno QUOTES BARBARA BRANDEN'S comments on Linz. Yet we see nobody accuse Ms. Branden of "sniping" at Linz.
There is a difference between those who recognise Linz's greatness offering constructive criticism on the one hand, and those who don't recognise his achievements jumping at the opportunity to engage in Linz bashing on the other.

MH

If I hear someone pay gushing homage to Lindsay one more time in the next hour, I think I'm gonna gag.

Same for calling SOLO "sunlit."

Are SOLO and Lindsay so fragile that we must sing hosannahs every time someone dares to frown around here?

Ferchrissakes, I almost feel obligated to add 'Linz and SOLO are GREAT!' to this post lest I be accused of treason. What's next, loyalty oaths?

To your point, Matthew, there may be a difference, but are we actually SEEING that difference in Mr. Bisno's post? I read the post, and I don't see it.

Nathan Hawking

Post 44

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 2:28pm

Robert Davison wrote:

... but as I have noted elsewhere we are responsible for our own emotions. No one makes us feel bad, we choose to feel bad.

This is incorrect. At best, we can mitigate and influence our emotions, and we can repress and deny them, but in general we DO NOT "choose" them.

Neither do they arise as a sole consequence of our philosophical "premises."

In short, people who act like asses toward others, who habitually malign motives and use degrading or condescending terms, are not getting a free pass. They are responsible for initiating psychological violence, and cannot evade this responsibility by declaring the victim responsible.

There is also the question of not knowing what will offend.

Almost everything we say is guaranteed to offend someone. But that doesn't entitle us to say things which would offend almost anyone.

Those with thick skins may be less aware of what others find offensive, but if they pay attention to their experiences with other people, and do not shrug off the reactions of others, they can become at least intellectually--even if not empathetically--aware of what bothers most reasonable people.

Nathan Hawking

Post 45

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:36pm

Sheeeeesh Nathan.... get a life!!!! Pretty soon you will be candy striping your own posts.

Post 46

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:39pm

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm - then we can call him Peppermint Pat, he?

Post 47

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:46pm

No, Robert -- Heckler Meant Nattering!

Post 48

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:25pm

I think more cut-and-dried moderation would solve most of this and encourage less-vitriolic posting. Any paragraphs or posts that are clearly over the line, the moderators could delete immediately, leaving in its place a comment from the moderator: "[deleted for over-the-line incivility]." There is no need to leave personal vitriol up for all eternity for everybody to stew over.

Threads that are going off the deep end could be shut down somewhere before the 999th iteration of the same gotcha-squared loop. The editorial advisory might read "Thread now closed." Better yet, keep threads open for only a set time anyway.

Daily Pundit now closes threads after five days because of spam. (Though there are so many threads at DP anyway that rarely does a thread get more than a few dozen posts or last more than two or three days.) If SHQ threads have a limited life span, there can't be the endless jostling to get the last word in. Immediately starting a new thread that is simply a carbon copy of the old thread would be frowned upon. Routine transgressors could simply be banned, perhaps after one or two public warnings of the problem.

Sure, what constitutes "clearly over the line" is itself debatable, but that's life. And that's why there's more than one discussion group on the Internet. Even if the moderation isn't perfect, if it's clear and definitive enough, the site wouldn't get bogged down in demoralizing cat fights. You would not have any opportunities for these infinities of angst. MovingOn would just be standard procedure.

Post 49

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:04pm

Thank you, David, for some thoughtful suggestions. I especially like the idea of limited life threads and moderation of caustic posts. Perhaps the management will give these ideas serious consideration, especially considering their evident success at a widely read site.
(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/24, 7:07pm)

Post 50

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:16pm

Nathan, I am detecting a pattern. You are not responsible for your emotions, you are not responsible as a citizen if your government sucks, you are not responsible.

Post 51

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:20pm

Yes David, we can not be trusted to control ourselves. We have to have a leader to tell us when we are bad. All hail the leader.

Post 52

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:37pm

Robert Davison wrote:

Nathan, I am detecting a pattern. You are not responsible for your emotions, you are not responsible as a citizen if your government sucks, you are not responsible.

The implication of your post is that I encourage evasion of responsibility.

On the contrary, I am extending the notion of responsibility to those who inflict unneccessary injury on other human beings, whether the context is war or debate.

People who unnecessarily inflict injury on other people are responsible for their deeds.

The injured are responsible for their own responses to those injuries, to the degree those responses are volitional.

If the issue is who is avoiding and who is accepting responsibility for their own actions, I am 100% comfortable with my own position. Take from that what you will.

Nathan Hawking

Post 53

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:11pm

Nathan,

How could anybody call you irresponsible; after helping to save us from Luke's posse?

You are in fact responsible for your emotions. They were given to you by your brain in early childhood. Unfortunately you have forgotten all about those events; or worse, they were SO traumatic that you repressed the memory of the occasions; erroneously thinking, out of sight; out of mind. It is those seeds of our emotions that grow and thrive throughout our lives. When we live deliberately, we take on the responsibility for understanding our emotions. When emotions aren't working for us , we have an added responsibility to unearth from our emotional history, the source of those unhelpful seeds. If we don't embrace that responsibility, with the same vigour that we argue semantics and other pedantic issues; then we are neglecting a very important part of our development. The result is; every time a watering can full of bad news comes along, those seeds are watered, and they burst out of the ground in full bloom. This depends of course, on the strength with which the seeds were planted in the first place; and how much they've been watered.

I haven't heard anyone say how Rand solved this search and understand mission; but one way to begin is; to examine earliest recollections of that negative feeling of the hour; and to write a thesis on the event, living through every emotionally-packed moment. That's what psychotherapy is all about. Once you unearth this knowledge, you will be able to choose thoughtfully and plan your response, from a wide catalogue; in order to achieve the desired affect.

If you aren't responsible for YOUR emotions, Nathan, then who is? If you want ME to be held responsible for the one you are having this very second; then I'll start the process of speculating (until I get it right) on your earliest recollection of feeling exactly this way, so many many years ago; until you scream UNCLE.

If the thought of this makes you roar with laughter; then start with that one, as an experiment. It's like cleaning up your hard drive of obsolete information.

If Rand had a better idea; as far as I can see; it's being suppressed. If I'm sounding sarcastic or nasty in my tone, I can't help it.

All Best
Sharon

Post 54

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:41pm

Leader. leader - ah yes, the english word for Fuhrer...............

Post 55

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 11:25pm

Sharon wrote:

Nathan,

How could anybody call you irresponsible; after helping to save us from Luke's posse?

LOL Father forgive them. They know not what they do. The ingrates.
...

If you aren't responsible for YOUR emotions, Nathan, then who is?

************** 'Taking You Seriously' Warning **************

It depends. Who is the proximate cause?

Other people can cause emotional responses in us. You don't really think you're the sole cause of that pounding heart when you had your first kiss, do you?

If you do, then do an experiment: produce those emotional reactions in yourself right now, without a partner. I predict that unless you have an enviably vivid imagination, or 30 years of acting lessons, you will not be successful.
...

If Rand had a better idea; as far as I can see; it's being suppressed. If I'm sounding sarcastic or nasty in my tone, I can't help it.

I am having difficulty following you, I'm afraid. I can't tell exactly what you mean and which side you're having fun with, so I just pulled some stuff out and addressed it literally even if like a boring pedant.

Sorry--best I can do right now. I'm getting word-weary, I think.

Nathan Hawking

Post 56

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 12:37am

Just as an exercise in futility, I decided to do some statistics on the posts on this thread. I wanted to see if I my impression was correct or if I was being unfair to Nathan and others. Here is what I came up with. The chart is given at the end and the interpretation here.

There is one article and 56 posts. There are 28 posters up to Post 55 (but not including my present post) and they are listed on the chart in descending order according to word count, but giving their post numbers in parentheses.

In number of posts, Nathan wins by a long shot, having a total of 10 posts. I came in second place with 4. Six posters had 3 posts and the rest had 2 or 1 posts.

In word count, Nathan wins by a much larger margin. Out of a total of 6382 words, including the article, 2036 words are in his 10 posts and 4346 words are in the 45 posts by the remaining 27 posters.

That is somewhere around 30% of the total words in this thread, including the article, being posted by one poster only from among 28 posters. In terms of content, Nathan focuses mainly on the two subjects of insisting on setting criteria for restraints in posting on Solo and responding nastily to harsh critics. Barbara�s article dealt with an appeal to stop bashing Linz and get back to the good times.

I will let the readers draw their own conclusions from the facts as found.

Michael

	Name	Posts	No. of Words
1	Nathan Hawking (11, 13, 20, 21, 30, 42, 43, 44, 52, 55)	10 Posts	2036
2	Derek McGovern (25, 32)	2 Posts	465
3	Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald (53)	1 Post	388
4	Pete (29)	1 Post	363
5	Barbara Branden (Article, 12, 23)	3 Posts	348
6	Newberry (26)	1 Post	335
7	Robert Bisno (9, 37, 38)	3 Posts	316
8	Robert Bidinotto (18)	1 Post	313
9	David M. Brown (48)	1 Post	259
10	Michael Stuart Kelly (5, 15, 19, 39)	4 Posts	217
11	Max (34)	1 Post	193
12	Matthew Humphreys (8, 36, 40)	3 Posts	169
13	Ethan Dawe (1, 10)	2 Posts	141
14	Robert Davison (35, 50, 51)	3 Posts	141
15	Scott DeSalvo (2, 33)	2 Posts	123
16	Peter Cresswell (6, 16, 31)	3 Posts	109
17	James Kilbourne (22)	1 Post	91
18	Ruth (27)	1 Post	87
19	Dean Michael Gores (28)	1 Post	79
20	Luke Setzer (0, 47, 49)	3 Posts	67
21	James Heaps-Nelson (3)	1 Post	39
22	robert malcom	2 Posts	26
23	katdaddy (24, 45)	2 Posts	21
24	Scott Schiff (7)	1 Post	19
25	Brant Gaede (14)	1 Post	15
26	Alec Mouhibian (4)	1 Post	10
27	robert malcom (54)	1 Post	10
28	Sam Pierson (17)	1 Post	2

Post 57

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 2:37am

woot, I have to get better ;) No, seriously... But I think Nathan tipped of an interesting part with the suggestion that he is not responsible for his emotions. In part this is right, because the instinct works faster than the reasoned thought, but this does not prevent you from counter-acting the primal emotion when you think it is only momentary event.
Sometimes emotions are based on a hurt ego or a flattered one and are not connected to your higher values in life. They can result from contradiction of premises or a limited set of datas your body has to evaluate in a split second.

So, are you responsible for your emotions no, but you are responsible for the deeds that derive from those emotions and thoughts.

Post 58

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:12am

Max and Nathan,

I am referring to the earliest recollection that one has, of having experienced that same feeling. It's the recognition reflex of a perterbance in the subconscious.

The ideas that I am introducing are from a book, which I consider very compatable with Rand's philosophy for living your life to the fullest as a singularity.

MY LOVER, MYSELF, self discovery through relationships. David Kantor,1999. Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam Inc.

This book describes a process whereby we can explore the basic myths about the self that were formed by childhood; and if left unexplored, cause us to lose out on life's greatest opportunity to become the best people we can be. It was written for couples; but I see in it an application for relationships in general.

This is especially true about the "personal myth", the origin of desire and why we look for love and approval. It stems from the broken promise made at birth to us, that life is and always would be perfect. The realization of that "broken contract of love, the painful realization of separateness that comes in childhood" prompts the search for the " right other" to repair the wound of that broken promise. If the myth is left unexplored,we set ourselves up to have our unspoken contract broken over and over.

When we argue incessantly, (as I do much less than I did before), it is to get agreement from the other as a means of obtaining (by the other embracing our wonderful idea, which is a deep part of our self) a feeling of being loved and worthwhile. It is through our relations with others that the contents of that myth are revealed. When we explore the myth of that belief, we can begin to heal the old wounds; and not have to gain the opponent's approval, by winning the argument.

I cannot argue proofs for this; but I will listen to questions and try to find answers from the book. I'll try to be brief.

Sharon

Post 59

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:31am