RoR: Forum

Shannon Miller's letter can be summed up as "self-responsibility for thee but not for me." Does she really believe that laws, words on paper, protect people? That without laws to forbid actions, anything goes?

Suzanne Barone's letter is an example of self-contradiction. Toastmasters are supposed to learn persuasive speaking skills without actually trying to persuade anyone. Is there really any point in "persuading" someone who already agrees with you?

Yes, listening (reading) is a much more difficult skill to learn than speaking (writing).

I've heard that some Toasmasters clubs have a 'Listener' role whose job is to listen carefully and then ask obscure (?) questions at the end of the meeting to determine how carefully others were listening.

Post 1

Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 7:27pm

If the Evil were Rational it would be Good.

Miller can be dismissed out of hand. Barone may have you with "The purpose of Toastmasters is to teach communication and leadership skills. How people choose to use them is outside the scope of Toastmasters." This reminds me of Rand's caveat on joining organizations except those established to accomplish very precise purposes and particularly on an ad hoc basis. Does Toastmasters have a mission statement advocating pro-limited-government activism?

My general rule is not to take what non-Objectivists say too seriously unless it possibly affects my welfare, not to take what self-identified Objectivists say too seriously, unless it affects my welfare directly, and not to sh!t where I eat, meaning not to mix job, romance, family and living circumstances in a way where a problem with one relationship can spill over into another area.

Did you not post before about the unfortunate gentleman with the persecution problem? You may want to help everyone and convince everyone, but people are adults and you have to be selective in your battles. I recently read Rand using a maxim I have long followed: "It is improper to address yourself to a faulty pyscho-epistemology. Devising a rational method to address the irrational is a contradiction." [Art of Non-Fiction, p 22, emphasis added] My version is condensed in the title of this post. If evil were rational it would be good, and if it were good it could be explained. But it's not, so you can't, so don't try.

You may actually be committing Dagny's error, being a martyr - a heroic altruist. You can't solve all the world's problems. You seem to enjoy Toastmasters immensely. Take what you can from it and realize that such disappointments such as this really don't matter to your happiness in the big scheme.

Ted

Ernst's "Celebes"

(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/15, 8:02pm)

Post 2

Friday, May 16, 2008 - 3:05am

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

The Toastmasters International (TI) Vision statement reads:

Toastmasters International empowers people to achieve their full potential and realize their dreams. Through our member clubs, people throughout the world can improve their communication and leadership skills, and find the courage to change.

Rick is correct to note the frustrating aspect of Toastmasters regarding the teaching of persuasion skills without the intent of actually persuading anyone.

Ted is correct that TI does not take a particular stand on the proper role of government in a free society.

That said, I mainly wrote my letter for the purpose of venting my displeasure to the TI editors at their selection of material with the understanding that they had the authority to publish or not publish it. Certainly they had the option of not publishing my letter. So I will only take part of the blame in "offending" some readers. In retrospect, I probably should have aimed my poison pen more at the editors than at Darcy Keith.

There are some speeches I hear that do make me gnash my teeth and bite my tongue not to criticize content. The evaluation forms used for feedback to speakers address methods of delivery -- confidence, coherence, poise, etc. -- rather than the merits of the actual content. The main thrust of TI is to help people to overcome their fear of public speaking, one of the most highly ranked fears among human beings.

Perhaps the most offensive item I ever witnessed was in an "Introducing Toastmasters" marketing video peppered with very brief clips of speakers ranging in talent from first timers to world champions. One clip had a woman speaking on the American health care crisis, saying, "Some people are forced to choose between affording a decent meal or decent health care. No one should ever have to make that choice." ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

In all fairness to TI, the clubs do have standards that can allow them to eject the worst of the worst. All new members are accepted into a club by majority vote of that club. This authorizes them to vote members out of a club by majority vote. The basic idea is to be able to get rid of disruptive members who abuse club speaking privileges to vent racist or other nonsense and basically sh!t on the audience, figuratively speaking. The TI by-laws and other corporate regulations have similar standards to reinforce some basic modicum of benevolence in the organization.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/16, 3:26am)

Post 3

Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 7:29am

Luke,

I agree with your choice to submit your letter. Your main point was that Darcy was using freedom to help stamp-out freedom. That's a good point to make. The only sentence in your letter that could be exploited -- by existential, money-grabbing, power-lusters -- is the last one, where you said that you hoped that Darcy would reconsider her views.

That can be taken as an affront to liberty (in a demented sort of way).

And it was. The best effort against this last sentence of yours was:

=========
The arguments are more powerful when the speaker acknowledges and refutes the other side.

We do not, however, chastise or condemn those with differing opinions or try to redirect their efforts. I hope Toastmaster Seltzer will acknowledge that Ms. Keith's right to have differing opinions from his is what ultimately makes the United States a free society.
=========

What's ironically left unsaid here is that the first sentence above was used as ammunition against your last sentence -- even though the thrust of what it was that you were saying ABSOLUTELY EMPLOYS the wisdom of arguments having to refute opposition (before being called good arguments)!

Also -- using rhetorical skill again for evil -- she argues that you don't respect the "right to have differing opinions." She was able to do that because your last sentence left an ambiguity which could be exploited.

In sum, your argument against paternalism was, itself, charged with the crime of paternalism!

Ed

Post 4

Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 7:30am

Luke, how do these "rank" against each other? ...

=========
ATM-B Advanced Toastmaster Bronze
CC Competent Communicator
DTM Distinguished Toastmaster
=========

Ed

Post 5

Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 9:19am

The rankings were recently revised to make the communication and leadership tracks more well-integrated.

Basically, each advancement reflects the completion of ten official speech projects and, for levels higher than CTM or CC, service as an officer at the club level or higher.

OLD RANKING

CTM      Competent Toastmaster
ATM-B Advanced Toastmaster Bronze
ATM-S Advanced Toastmaster Silver
ATM-G Advanced Toastmaster Gold
DTM      Distinguished Toastmaster

NEW RANKING

CC        Competent Communicator
Still not familiar with the remaining rankings as my ATM-B ranking is "grandfathered" and I have been too busy with graduate school to pay them much attention.

Post 6

Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 9:22am