RoR: Forum

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

I especially got a kick out of how the Indians viewed slaves, as black White Men, and their difficulty in understanding slavery because they did not practice - therefore understand the concept of - property rights for real estate.

Reminds me of a joke a friend of mine told: When the white men came to Manhattan we sold it to 'em for some beads, we sure fooled them, eh? Don't you get it? See, what the white men didn't know is that you can't own the land.

Cracks me up every time.

(Edited by Kevin Haggerty on 8/24, 11:13am)

Post 21

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 10:19am

Steven thinks I'm flitting around on dove wings.

I don't snipe. I will say that my future son-in-law is a Marine, and one of their snipers. Had a lovely dinner with him last night, in fact. I like to shoot, but I haven't been to the range lately. Mostly, I pack in the 'hood when I'm working. Hopefully, no need will ever arise for me to make use.

Let me make this very clear to you in terms familiar to any good testosterone-packing monkey-boy: I am not a quiche-eater. I am an expert, highly cross-trained martial artist, down to the street-fighting level. Knives, guns, stick, or whatever is sitting around. I work in the poorest city in the country, and I usually pack. Am I manly enough now? I was the skinny, runny-nosed little kid in school, and I had to use my mind to learn how to survive by learning how to seriously overcome much larger opponents in combat.

See, here's how fights work: There is no winner. If you go into a fight, and win it, you are still likely to be marginally fucked up. And, your opponent will be somewhere between that, and dead. None of that is good, because killing is bad. You know, objective morality, and all that?

Stories like you posted basically amount to you running around with your dick sticking out.

What was your purpose for that article, cowboy? To draw a loose allegory between a very nasty, old piece of history between the Dutch settlers the goddamn Zulus, and hmmm.... let me think....Islamic-based terrorism? What the fuck is wrong with you? Here is a little pearl of wisdom for you: civilized human beings do not celebrate killing. Please read that again for extra ingrainment. Killing is a thing to avoid, but there are times when it must occur. What you don't do, unless you have a major malfunction, is sit around the campfire and fucking glorify it. That story, as all of its kind, has one feature: there were a bunch of dead bodies. Fathers, brothers, sons- you know, human goddamn beings. Death is something to be mourned, it is a tragedy.

Right now, as far as I can see, this is what you accomplished with your Zulu article:

1. Big rah-rah good ol' boy session, yay, kick ass!
2. Made more mess of talking about what already is a very fucked-up subject, where there is a lot of intolerance, violence, shame, and disease by both white and black.
3. Ancillary racial polarization, as if we needed that.
4. Above all, glorified killing! Yay!!!!

Myths and stories are how people communicate, and you pick THIS?

I try not to get angry often, but this is bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

rde
Find Me A Negro Objectivist And I Will Pay You FIVE DOLLARS!!!<tm>

Post 22

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 10:31am

Now that's what I call KASS, Mr. Engle! Sanctioned! Your tiger style is definitely more powerful than their snake style!
(Edited by Kevin Haggerty on 8/24, 10:31am)

Post 23

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:20pm

Thank you Rich.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:09pm

Find Me A Negro Objectivist And I Will Pay You FIVE DOLLARS!!!

Clarence Hardy.

Will that be by paypal?

I am not sure myself what to make of this article. Bragging about the numbers that were "killed" does seem sick.

However, I am not sure if this was Steven's intention or not.

Post 25

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:13am

For excellent reading on Western Military matters and why Western armies so often triumph,take a look at "Why the West Has Won" by Victor Davis Hanson. He has an excellent archive of articles here;

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200508120813.asp

Post 26

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:31pm

I don't want to have to write things like that any more, but I will.

Steven, I apologize, on reflection I think that the better choice would have been to first contact you off-forum. I am convinced that you are a very good man all around, and I know for sure SOLO is a better place with you being a part of it.

rde
Exploring new boundaries of passive-aggression, while buying up black Objectivists.

Post 27

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:38pm

Wonderful post Rich.

The result of a bunch of killing is a bunch of dead bodies. Human beings. Regardless of the issues.

That is a fact that always needs to be foremost in the mind when discussing and engaging in violent conflicts. There are many other important facts, but that is one of the crucial ones that never can be ignored.

<bonk>

Michael

Post 28

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 2:07pm

My intention was to tell a story about how justice was served to the Zulus who betrayed their word with no provocation. It was a metaphyiscal tale (one I felt portrayed the premise of the benevolent universe, not through killing but through the administration of justice) and an ethical one, demonstrating what can happen to those who violate ethical standards like honesty. At no time and in no way was it my intent to draw a parallel with Islam. I was simply reading a history book and was struck by the fact that the civilized, technological and reason-driven Westerners were able to triumph so astoundingly over their enemies. I attribute that not only to adherence to reason but also to the ethical standards the Zulu violated.

Rich, in no way was I "doving" you, I just found it particularly malicious of you to point out that our reason-based culture has some black marks in it while omitting the fact that most tribal societies, are, well, tribalistic and irrational.

I, too, was, the runny-nosed underdeveloped kid. I used my mind, bulked up, and am now an officer in the United States Army. But, still, I generally abhor violence when alternatives are available. However, if we are to recognize the fact that sometimes defending ourselves is a good thing, then committing that good act in furtherance of our values (the value being survival), then we should recognize that defense as a good thing. In short, killing for ethical reasons should be celebrated because it's the right thing to do, and we should celebrate doing the right thing. My military experience has amply notified me that, whatever the circumstances, killing will mess you up, but part of being messed up is when you are in ethical "muddy waters" to start. When your conscience is clear and the killing is just, you should be rational enough to realize that what you are doing is right.

I find it rather disturbing how many SOLOists sanctioned and "hear hear"-ed your post. If killing is something to be avoided and to be mourned when done, that drops the context to killing. Furthermore, if there are not certain killings to be done in the name of the furtherance of justice, then that makes killing simply a utilitarian act, one devoid of ethical standards other than "it's what had to be done".

P.S. I am using a calm tone because I accept your apology for your vitriol. I can look past that and I hope that I am merely addressing your points, with which I disagree.

P.P.S. I just wear the cowboy hat because it pissed-off my then girlfriend, and I can be a real spiteful bastard sometimes.

Post 29

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 3:16pm

Michael said....

"The result of a bunch of killing is a bunch of dead bodies. Human beings. Regardless of the issues."

- I cannot rejoice that reason is used for making better war. The need to make war at all is distasteful to me, even against savages.
- If it must be engaged in, so be it. And may those more dedicated to reason win.
- I cannot rejoice in the constant recourse to brute force by both savages and pioneers.
- I cannot rejoice in genocide instead of education.
- I cannot rejoice in the resistance of savages to adopting reason when they encounter it in order to maintain their own brutal "traditions."
- I cannot rejoice in the resistance of pioneers to adopting reason when they acquire what they want by killing natives.
- There is so much in this White Man versus Native approach that I simply cannot relate to - on either side.

"Conquest on savages happened all over the world. It is part of our history. There are many good things on both sides and many despicable things on both sides. The good is where reason was used. The bad is where it was not."

----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Powerpoint Slide -------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, dear, you captured my feelings exactly. I never liked war stories anyway. War is not a sport or a video game, but real death and destruction resulting in dead human beings. Sometimes wars are necessary.... like now, but that doesn't mean I personally care for the play-by-play slow-motion replay with all the gory details. I'm more interested in the ideas, strategies and politics demonstrating the rational conquering the irrational than admiring spilled blood and dead bodies. This article seems to be about destroying native cultures on their own land.

Maybe I'm being too PC, but I find glorifying the killing of "savages" just as extremely racist as multicultural bromides or people calling for the extermination of all Muslims. Thanks also to Rich for my daily dose of KASS.

Kat

Post 30

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 3:29pm

"This article seems to be about destroying native cultures on their own land."

Uh, no, it's not. Did you even read it? The article is about how a group of people were betrayed by irrational savages, and how their adherence to ethics and metaphysics (by improving their lives through technology) helped them exact justice on those who murdered 600 of their friends and fellow-travellers.

Additionally, natives generally had no concept of ownership. How can it be "their own land".

Seriously, I am wondering how you could say what you did and still have read the article.

To the rest, why is that: (note: this is all contextual)

If love is a value, then loving someone is good.
If life is a value, then eating is a good thing.
If happiness is a value, then rationally pursuing your happiness is wonderful.

Good/wonderful things and acts are to celebrated.

However, if life is a value, then killing to defend it is...

sad but necessary???

What lunacy.

Post 31

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:08pm

When dealing with some of the thoughts of the day during the height of the cold war, Ayn Rand addressed two prevalent ideas of the time; (1)"Better off dead than red" and (2)"Better off red than dead". She identified the correct ideology as being "Better to see the reds dead." Sometimes war is absolutely necessary(this should be a damn truism) and when a war between rational men and malicious thugs who have set upon them ends up in victory for the rational men, then it is an achievement to call our attention to. I never once thought Steven was celebrating 'death' or war, nor did my sanctioning this article have anything to do with celebrating 'death' or war. I sanctioned it because of it's sense of justice and heroism. This sticking-a-daisy-in-the-barrel-of-the-gun criticism is way off base. The numbers he quoted were not for the sake of glamorizing the number of bodies, but for glamorizing the accomplishments of a few rational men versus an evil horde.

Post 32

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:26pm

P.S.
Steven- you said

am now an officer in the United States Army

Thank you.

Post 33

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:29pm

Well said, Jody. I too sanctioned Steven�s article.

"Better to see the reds dead." I love that.

My Dad recalls from his ROTC days an instructor who said to the class: �That business about dying for your country�forget that. Your job is to make the other guy die for *his* country.� I don�t know why that comes to mind now.

�sticking-a-daisy-in-the-barrel-of-the-gun.� That�s great.

Jon

Post 34

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:51pm

In principle, I liked the article, Steven.

Regarding the "celebratory" factor of victory, I think there's a fine line between that type of celebration being malevolent or righteously held.

Short story:

My son, Nick, is in the US Army. His girlfriend, Reah, is Japanese. He recently traveled to Japan to meet her family, who speak very little English. Nick speaks practically no Japanese.

Reah's grandmother owns a drinking establishment in Kyoto that my son, Reah, her family, and many of her friends frequented during his visit. The "regulars" at this pub looked forward to Nick's visits to show off the little bit of English they knew, teach him more Japanese, and to discover more about "real American attitude."

Nick was amazed by what they wanted to know about "American attitude."

The burning question was: Did Americans laugh and dance after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII? Did we point and laugh? Did we celebrate? Were we happy to do it? Was it something we still relish with joy?

Nicholas is 21 years old, but his answer came from someone you'd think much older. "No," he said, "it wasn't something we were happy to do, nor did we dance in the streets afterward. We danced after Japan finally surrendered. We relish with joy the day the war ended. Americans didn't point and laugh, we sent food and supplies instead."

I love that kid. He encapsulated the proper response to the horrors war can produce by a winning side. The proper response when good actually does win the war are integrity, pride, and honor. There would be something more than a little disgusting about a history book that would highlight a soldier's joy after a slaughter, as if that emotional response were somehow important to the actual winning mechanisms of that particular war.

Post 35

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:54pm

Jody, you wrote:

This sticking-a-daisy-in-the-barrel-of-the-gun criticism is way off base.

I hope you were not referring to what I wrote. If you were, then I get the same sense of frustration that Steven got of not being read. It seems that whenever this subject comes up, you make a statement saying that you find both good and evil in both sides, that is why you see no point to glorifying something like that. And if killing must be done, then get it over with and move on.

A little time goes by and then you are put on one side or another as if you never stated what you did.

People forget for some reason.

I was with Steven almost for a while simply because I can identify with reacting to a betrayal and kicking ass. Even using reason to overcome overwhelming odds. However he stated just now:

Good/wonderful things and acts are to celebrated.

However, if life is a value, then killing to defend it is...

sad but necessary???

What lunacy.

Yes, killing to defend it is necessary at times - but it is always sad for those who love life. Why? Because it is so final. There is no way to undo it. Mistakes cannot be atoned for to one killed in error. There is no possibility of seeing the dead change their mind. I can think of many reasons why it is sad.

Any celebration of the victors to me needs to be in escaping a fate worse than their enemies, using their minds to attain this, whatever. Not in the killing per se.

I consider "lunacy" to be the celebration of death, not recognizing the reality of what death is.

Steven, you just stated very clearly:

My military experience has amply notified me that, whatever the circumstances, killing will mess you up, but part of being messed up is when you are in ethical "muddy waters" to start. When your conscience is clear and the killing is just, you should be rational enough to realize that what you are doing is right.

(My emphasis.)

Still, that's an awful big "should" there which I do not see borne out by reality. Your conscious mind might think you did a virtuous thing by killing and try to celebrate it, but your subconscious knows that the issue is serious and demands serious consideration. It forces that on you. That is what I have seen more often than not.

Once again, for those who think I am a dove shoving daisies in cannons, let me be clear. I do uphold killing for protection (even for dismantling a hostile military capacity). May it be done with extreme competence and accuracy. However, I do not hold this to be pleasurable and object of any particular celebration. A feeling of gratitude, maybe. Speaking of which...

Steven, despite this particular disagreement, let me salute you and offer my gratitude for your participation in the USA armed forces. You help protect me and my loved ones and I am not only aware of that, I am grateful.

Michael

Post 36

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:11pm

Michael-
I think we are arguing very near each other. You said-

I do not hold this to be pleasurable and object of any particular celebration.

You were referring to killing. Reason forbid that it ever become pleasurable, and I doubt any rational soldier who has ever celebrated a victory was celebrating the killing itself. Sometimes though, as you said, war is necessary. That statement ipso facto means that our celebrations of good over evil will somtimes entail situations where killing took place. In an ideal world reason wins the day without such taking of lives, but unfortunately we sometimes can't reason with a 15,000-member-strong horde of evil rushing in our direction.

Post 37

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:20pm

gw:

Hahahahaha! That was one of SOLO's funniest posts ever, and it was just one word! Thanks for the laugh.

Post 38

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:47pm

Jon - it was Patton who said that. It is even in the opening speech George C Scott, as Patton, says in the movie of that name.

Post 39

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 6:57pm