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 60

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

And a man who eats rocks is one sick bastard by any rational standard.

But Steven hasn’t shown any love for eating rocks, so you didn’t suggest such a thing. I’d like to see where Steven shows his enjoyment of suffering and death.

Jon

Post 61

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I do eventually figure things out.  If you want to take your history from the multi-culti propaganda, go ahead and do so.  But you might find history is much more interesting than what those with an agenda want you to think.

I have nothing further to say except to advise that primitive does not mean stupid or irrational or child-like.  Give primitive people credit for the choices they made, good or bad, when they were confronted with a superior culture.  In short, treat them like the full-fledged human beings they are instead of the paternalism inherent in your statements on this subject.

Andy


Post 62

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 10:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't go there Jon. I never said that Steven enjoyed it.

I gave the hog butcher reference as one example to support my reason for not glorifying the violence and killing part.

I presented my views on this (including my appreciation of the parts of the Steven's article I liked) as clearly as I could.

I simply have a real hard time trying to cut through the preconceptions of those who hold them and focus on reason. You gotta try, though.

So here goes another attempt (a Luke Setzer moment this time - maybe he can help me with a chart ):

One extreme: Lilly-livered heart-sobbing liberals who think violence and killing are always bad.

The other extreme: Sadists and sick bastards who like to kill first and only say, "Whoops!" when they get the wrong person and then go on enjoying the killing.

The middle: A HUGE spectrum going from one to the other, with REASON planted squarely in the middle.

Passivity should not be glorified. Killing should not be glorified. Reason should be glorified.

The problem with these kinds of stories (and I am not saying that this is 100% the case here, just something to be guarded against) is that they create an emotional appeal that push people too far in one direction or another. One constant remains. Regardless of the direction, it is always away from reason.

To the extent Steven's article prompts people to want to be rational, it is a very good article. I basically take it that way, but with one misgiving. To the extent it plays on the basic emotions of the two extremes, i.e. "look cross-eyed at me and I will stomp you to death," or "look at how vile all killing and violence is regardless of context," it leads away from reason. And it does play on them to some extent. Look at the posts.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/26, 10:09am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 10:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

"You engage in violence when reason dictates, otherwise no."

Did the settlers engage in violence when reason dictated it?

"You engage in killing when reason dictates, otherwise no."

Did the setlers engage in killing when reason dictated it?

If no, then we profoundly disagree on the rational use of violence. If yes, then I do not understnad the criticism of the article and the fact that it deals with death as it does.

"Am I for glorifying violence and killing or against it?"

Did the article glorify violence and killing, or did it glorify violence and killing justly and reasonably?

"To the extent his focus was on the virtue of killing - death - as proof of moral superiority, somewhat insinuated and not within the realm of reason, I am against it."

I respectfully disagree. I do not think that there is any evidence you can proffer in support of your position that the article presents killing as a virtue, or that the article posits that killing is proof of moral virtue. None, either directly or through insinuation. It was both brave and admirable that the settlers stood up to such numbers and prevailed--yes, due to technology, but also because they were more rational. I don't think his focus was on any of those things, at all.

"Moral superiority is shown to me by the survival of the rational people (to the extent they were rational) , not by the killing of the irrational people, which in this case was merely a condition needed for survival because the rational people were betrayed and attacked. That is not merely a hair that is being split."

With due respect, what the hell are you talking about? This is semantics. They were moral because they survived (ok), but they only survivied because they killed (yes), but killing does not prove their moral superiority (true), but killing was necessary for survival because they were attacked (ok)? Huh?

"But no man I know of with a healthy soul likes killing."

Okay, but who is arguing for that? Did Steve write that? Did I? But I'll grant you this. I LOVE that fact that the US has the most efficiently-trained killers on the planet. The just SHOULD be proficient at violence, precisely BECAUSE they are the just.

"A butcher becomes indifferent to the suffering of hogs over time, but one who enjoys the suffering and death is one sick bastard by any rational standard."

Agreed. But unless this is a floating abstraction, who is the butcher in this analogy? Steve? I dont think that's a fair interpretation of his article at all. I don't think I'm a butcher, either.


Post 64

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't go there Scott. I never said that Steven enjoyed butchering - nor you.

Hmmmm...

This seems familiar.

Please read my preceding post.

Michael


Post 65

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK:

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.

 
Thank you.

And, a scoundrel is a scoundrel regardless of their level of technology. Unfortunately, it gets sided, both-sided. I think it is only comparitively recently that there has been many attempts to look at it other than Great White Man comes and tames the wild animals.


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

"One extreme: Lilly-livered heart-sobbing liberals who think violence and killing are always bad.

The other extreme: Sadists and sick bastards who like to kill first and only say, "Whoops!" when they get the wrong person and then go on enjoying the killing.

The middle: A HUGE spectrum going from one to the other, with REASON planted squarely in the middle."

No, no, no.
There are all sorts on the continuum, from extreme pacifist on one end to the sociopath on the other. Reason doesn't live in the MIDDLE, like some moderate, this is good, but that is good, too, middle of the road nothingness.

It is a tool outside the continuum, which must be used by the pacifist as well as the sociopath to make correct decisions regarding the use of force, and their reverence, or lack thereof, for violence despite their tendencies, which are what is gauged on the continuum.

Answering every question with "Reason is the answer" is no answer at all.

What is your favorite color?
Reason is my favorite color.

Why don't you take a stand on an issue?
Reason is my stand on every issue.

Do you like chocolate ice cream?
Reason is my favorite ice cream.

Is the article offensive or not?
I like the parts that promote reason, but dislike those that move us away from reason.

This approach is "Reason as non-answer," which certainly does NOT serve reason. Either you had a positive or negative reaction to the article. Either Steve has a point, or he doesn't.

Now, I understand the complexity of the issues involved in the Western Civilizations dealing woth less advanced cultures. Those are side issues, not really raised in the article. If you do not focus on the context, you'll never make a decision. And the Reason cannot truly guide you.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Oh! Anonymous hog butchers.

This explains the misunderstanding Scott and I are having with you. We’ve been talking about the contents of Steven’s article.

Jon

Post 68

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"And, a scoundrel is a scoundrel regardless of their level of technology. Unfortunately, it gets sided, both-sided. I think it is only comparitively recently that there has been many attempts to look at it other than Great White Man comes and tames the wild animals."

I hardly think anyone on this list is of the opinion that a fair summary is "Great White Man comes and tames the wild animals." I don't think anyone is particularly blind to the fact that Americans did some horrible things to less advanced peoples. Just like every ethnic group in the history of the world has done to other ethnic groups.

But the article doesn't even deal with the American West. It deals with savages who murdered inncocent men, and the wrath was visited upon them by superior technology and knowledge. I do not think I saw any mention in the article of anything the settlers did that would qualify them as scoundrels, and plenty that the Africans did that perfectly qualificed them as such.

Post 69

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,
There are all sorts on the continuum, from extreme pacifist on one end to the sociopath on the other. Reason doesn't live in the MIDDLE, like some moderate, this is good, but that is good, too, middle of the road nothingness.

It is a tool outside the continuum, which must be used by the pacifist as well as the sociopath to make correct decisions regarding the use of force, and their reverence, or lack thereof, for violence despite their tendencies, which are what is gauged on the continuum.


I'm not big on posting "Me too!"  But I like the way you denounced the error of the middle way.  Bravo!

Andy


Post 70

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dayaamm Scott.

If you don't want to see my point at all, just say so and we will stop talking about it.

Do you have any idea of what I was using as the standard of the metaphorical spectrum I mentioned? Your response indicated that you used a completely different one.

And then you went hell-bent after your own misunderstanding.

They call that a straw man in Objectivist jargon, don't they?

This really is getting boring. What happened to the fucking ideas?

Michael


Post 71

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
" 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." " [Teresa]

Teresa,

Your son sounds like a real class act. But, having read the sanity in your posts for the last few years, It has to be a case of like mother, like son.

Phil

Post 72

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"If you don't want to see my point at all, just say so and we will stop talking about it."

Make one and I'll respect it.

And please don't accuse me of fabricating a straw man, and thereby building one of your own. I was simply replying to what you wrote. I'm sorry if I am too direct or abrasive. Show me where I am wrong about what you wrote, or where I missed you point. I sometimes am wrong.

Post 73

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 6:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaaawe, thanks, Phil. :) 

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott:

I hardly think anyone on this list is of the opinion that a fair summary is "Great White Man comes and tames the wild animals." I don't think anyone is particularly blind to the fact that Americans did some horrible things to less advanced peoples. Just like every ethnic group in the history of the world has done to other ethnic groups.

But the article doesn't even deal with the American West. It deals with savages who murdered inncocent men, and the wrath was visited upon them by superior technology and knowledge. I do not think I saw any mention in the article of anything the settlers did that would qualify them as scoundrels, and plenty that the Africans did that perfectly qualificed them as such.

Multiculturalism has been taken en-masse and labeled evil (or at least irrational) around here by the majority. It was done along the lines of the situation on another thread where two people have decided that psychology is a pseudo-science. It was done by extension- there are people that have absurd political/social justice movements that they run under the monniker of multiculturalism. That gets turned into what amounts to wholesale dumping of the entire branches of sociology, and anthropology.  The normal approach is that the superior culture is the more technically evolved one. Remember the whole religion is evil thing? It can be looked on as two different cultures of supernaturalists going at it if you strip the technology piece out of it.

It usually goes the same way in discussion- the only time any concession is made that both parties did bad things is if someone makes enough stink to draw it out. Otherwise, it is don't ask don't tell. Every fucking time. Settlers 1, Primitive Savages 0.

As far as the smearing between talking about the West, N. America, etc., I apologize for lack of clarity- the discussion seemed to have advanced into a general one. I should have not mixed cases so early.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/27, 7:47am)


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Multiculturalism has been taken en-masse and labeled evil (or at least irrational) around here by the majority."

Here, we agree. Multiculturalism, HAS been labeled evil here, and everywhere where people understand what it is really about. It is by and large about granting moral equivalence to all cultures and the actions of all cultures. In practice, it is about granting superior moral status to any non-Western culture, and its adherents are ususally the legion of those who hate the West, because it wrongfully killed a few people, or wrongfully broke a few treaties. These things are deplorable. But the difference between the West and these other lauded "multicultural' cultures is that the West has explicit ideology AGAINST these blips, and these other cultres, by and large, live by the vile, violent and evil things they do to themselves, each other, and when they get the chance, Westerners. Our blemishes are the exception--theirs are part of their culture and part of their cultural ideal. That's why you only have maybe 20 recycled and popularized such stories in American history, but can pick up any newspaper for at least 3 or more new atrocities by these other cultures every day. Precisely BECAUSE their morality is NOT based on the individual (or at least nt to the degree as it is in the West--it should be more so), but based on the group, tribe identity, ethnic group identity, violence as way of life, murder as acceptable or preferred means of resolving conflict, rigid social class, etc., etc.

Multiculturalism is horseshit. Other cultures should be studied to see what we can adopt from them to become more successful. And, for historical purposes, or diplomatic purposes. That's it.

Post 76

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
M. Kelly

Please point me in the direction of the sections of my article that seem to glorify these attitudes (which you wrote):

"'look cross-eyed at me and I will stomp you to death,' or 'look at how vile all killing and violence is regardless of context,'"

Because you think that I at least in part glorify the first emotion, it is therefore logical (based on your own posts) to conclude this:

1. Steven glorifies the "macho-slaughter" attitude i.e. he seems to like killing in this context

2. "But no man I know of with a healthy soul likes killing" (Post 59--your own words)

3. Therefore, Steven must have an unhealthy soul. Tell me please how this could be when you have thrown in one-hundred disclaimers against this conclusion, yet your own words lead to it regardless.

"That (killing) is merely a duty that needs to be performed at times to promote survival, not a glory.

Duty? Excuse me, paging Immanuel Kant. I didn't realize we believed in out-of-context "duties" here. You really are dropping the context here, you have explicitly said here that "in no time in no place in no way in no fashion is killing ever something to be glorified ever". That's a classic example of context-dropping.

Post 77

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 10:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's some objective proof that some cultures are worse than others. 

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 10:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's why, Scott - each person, properly, creates his/her own culture, unique to that particular individual, picking and choosing [even thru default if not otherwise] those aspects of others' cultures which appeals to the specific individual, who as such is truly making a 'self-made soul'...  the greater the growth of being human, that is, of recognising the sovereignty of the individual, the greater the flourishing of that person as a human, self-made, with that one's own culture...

And, as such, stands or falls according to that scale of how close to being a fully flourishing human that culturing achieves... and that, and only that, can be claimed as anything of a valid 'multi-culturism'...


Post 79

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert: Yep.

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


User ID Password or create a free account.