RoR: Forum

Cheers, lad !!! Cheers !!!

Post 1

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 3:14pm

Marty,

I admire you so much, first because you're a mathematician, secondly because you could get a teaching position at the university level, and thirdly because you have the willingness and grasp of essentials to fight back against the irrationalists in the academy in this feisty and principled way.

Keep it up!

-Bill

Post 2

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 7:43pm

The price of being an academic is eternal, around-the-clock vigilance, and clear, objective, reasoning that rises above nit-picky, tunnel vision, west-bashers.

It also rises above west-basher-bashing you know.

Sarah

Post 3

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 7:46pm

How so Sarah?

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:01pm

Sarah,
What do you think is the appropriate response to someone who disdains all the values that support freedom and reason? Or do you disagree that many academics do indeed do that?

Post 5

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:02pm

West-bashing is silly. It ignores the positives, as Marty said, and runs in the same vein as the all-or-nothing fallacy. West-basher-bashing is the same. "Oh, we won't bother listening to anything he has to say. He read Kant once." Last I checked, being objective didn't include hasty generalizations and guilt by association.

Sarah

Post 6

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:12pm

Jeff,

Certainly not bashing. Context is important of course, but in the case of bashing (in most cases, any kind of bashing), equal and opposite is the worst course of action. It does little more than further entrench both sides ("See, those ______ are nothing but mindless barbarians"). And a better course certainly doesn't entail compromising ones own position, as is so often the accusation (there's that either-or thing again). I'd like to think that a simple rational argument would be enough, but I've lost that innocence. Quality rhetoric can go a long way.

Sarah

P.S. Dark Phoenix! X3 trailer.

(Edited by Sarah House
on 12/06, 8:45pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:18pm

And yes, I do disagree that most academics hold genuine disdain for that which we value. They are misguided, not evil.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 12/06, 8:22pm)

Post 8

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:41pm

Sarah-
I disagree. I think they are evil. They know better. Only promblem is, that since most of them are supported by the government's confiscation of and redistribution of money, they are no better than the average thief, and fight like hell for their chunk of, and ability to continue feeding on the stolen pie. A moocher is a moocher, and a moocher is evil.

Post 9

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:49pm

Jody,

Do you really think they wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, I know that I'm really sucking the life out of society, but in between eating babies and raping virgins I like to do me some thievin' so I'll stick with evil today."

Sarah

Post 10

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:57pm

Sarah-
Melodrama serves nothing. If you wish to serve evil with histrionics then apply it equally. Why don't you defend all variants of thieves with the same farcical caricatured statements? Yes, they are evil. Yes, they know each and every day what they are doing. Yes, they are know different from any other thief. Yes, they are no different from any other moocher. I never speculated about cannibalism, perhaps you know more of their evil than I do. So why don't you stop it with the histrionics.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 12/06, 8:58pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 10:08pm

Jody and Sarah,

If you're going to have this debate, you should concretize who you are talking about. Which academics? What fields? What level of error? I don't happen to agree with (some of) Peikoff's concretes for evil intellectuals in "Fact and Value" such as the academic Marxist, but at least he specifies who he is talking about.

Post 12

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 7:52am

Jody says:

Only promblem is, that since most of them are supported by the government's confiscation of and redistribution of money, they are no better than the average thief, and fight like hell for their chunk of, and ability to continue feeding on the stolen pie. A moocher is a moocher, and a moocher is evil.

So, is this the general principle you're applying: anyone who is supported by money from the government (except, I assume, those involved with the police, the courts, and the military) is a moocher, is no better than the average thief, and therefore is evil?

Glenn

Post 13

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 8:05am

Glenn-
No, I'm mucking around with Sarah. I will however, unequivocally say that those who fight to keep this little corner of socialism entrenched, and who fight to further entrench themselves and to further anti-western, postmodern, Marxist ideas are evil. Considering that Marty illuminated the very academic types under question, I did not feel the need to clarify things further.

Post 14

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 8:26am

I will however, unequivocally say that those who fight to keep this little corner of socialism entrenched, and who fight to further entrench themselves and to further anti-western, postmodern, Marxist ideas are evil.

Jody, If you want an argument from me, you'll have to pick another subject. : )
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 15

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 10:11am

They are very bad ideas, yes. But I think approaching these engagements as if they were fisticuffs is also a bad idea. People are swayed less by the might of an argument than by its eloquence. Marxism et al. have the upper hand because they are "for the children." While we shouldn't argue that systems such as Oism are "for the children" just because that works, I think a more mature - for lack of a better word - approach would be beneficial. Oism's arguments are a bit like a young child in that they are brutally honest. But brutal honesty can only get you so far.

Invariably, if you attack a person's ideas outright they will become defensive and you will get nowhere. If, however, you act as a guide along the rational path, they will see the truth for themselves.

Sarah

Post 16

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 10:55am

There is no more eloquent argument than the truth. You can sprinkle powdered sugar all over your words and you are never going to get anywhere with these leftist academics, precisely because they KNOW what they are doing, precisely because they are evil. We're talking about professors, not the confused students they are trying to indoctrinate.

Post 17

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 1:26pm

Marty, your article almost brought me to tears -- thank you.

Ed
[Someone quite familiar with Academia]

Post 18

Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 2:52am

Thanks, Ed. I appreciate the support on this site. I am a minority of one among the full-time faculty, and I have no friends among them. Nevertheless, I will continue to be a champion of reason and freedom even if the price is ex-communication. At least they have no inquisition or I'd be toast.

;-)

Post 19

Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 4:18am