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 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 80

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert B,

I'm going to agree with Jason, to precisely this extent:

If you don't think some production (be it Ms. Hsieh's or anyone else's) is worth spending time on, that's a perfectly legitimate judgment.  If you aren't interested in reading it, and question whether anyone else should be, don't read it--and if anyone asks, give your reasons for not bothering.  Everyone has finite time, and a finite list of priorities; everyone is "rationally ignorant," as the Public Choice folks say.

But don't judge its content without having read it.  Calling a blog entry a "diatribe" implies, not only that it is highly condemnatory of some person, group, or idea, but that it can't back up the condemnation with anything approaching compelling reasons.

A moderately well known developmental psychologist once declared to other developmental psychologists of my acquaintance that a book that I had written was "No good."  I knew, from talking to a couple of this individual's grad students, that he hadn't read the book because, as one of them matter-of-factly stated, "[name deleted to protect the guilty] never reads what is critical of him."  Two short passages in the book were indeed critical of his ideas, and he had obviously learned about this from someone or other.

Not wanting to read it and being willing to explain why--fine.  Condemning it without reading it--not fine.

Robert C


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 81

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not reading something because there are better things to do (like ignoring it) , while at the same time commenting at length and negatively (i.e. clearly not ignoring it) seems strange to me.

Back to the evidence issue RB. What I meant is, Diana was not seeking to have Chris convicted on a criminal matter, or proven to be the father of her child, she was seeking to explain her reasons for severring ties with him, and give her reasons for breaking a promise she once made to him. What constitutes evidence in this case, and the degree to which it is admissible, is tied to Diana's morality and Diana's values.

What would drive one person to divorce another is not some universal, acceptable, "evidence". Same with this.

John


PS I have not read it either and have no intention of doing so. However I will continue to comment positively on it. I maintain that this is entirely logical and reasonable of me. Anyone disagreeing with me is a jihadist btw....sigh

Post 82

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Jenna,

What RPG are you playing? That's a far more interesting topic :-)

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 4/29, 2:03pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 83

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John said:

Back to the evidence issue RB. What I meant is, Diana was not seeking to have Chris convicted on a criminal matter, or proven to be the father of her child, she was seeking to explain her reasons for severring ties with him, and give her reasons for breaking a promise she once made to him. What constitutes evidence in this case, and the degree to which it is admissible, is tied to Diana's morality and Diana's values.

Maybe I am missing something here John, but it seems to me that when one person makes a statement of someone else being a liar then the contention is either the truth or it is not and based on what I know of Objectivism it does not allow for contradictions in reality.

With that in mind the purported evidence would need to be tied to reality(whether it's true or not) not to Ms Hsieh's "morality' and "values" or lack thereof.

What she is doing is trying and convicting him on a public forum so I would think substantiated facts would become paramount to her case.

L W


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 84

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Sigh.)

The tacit premise of Jason's closing point (post #79) appears to be that even brief communication to clarify one's position is inconsistent with a focus on a "self interested life."

Now let me see how this works:

Because Bidinotto refuses to read certain people's writings -- due to his long personal experience with them, their past record of personal "diatribes" and "screeds," and other unsavory actions -- he has been publicly, repeatedly accused (for most of a year) of being an "evader."

But now, when for the first time he at last clarifies the reasons why he refuses to read these people, he is accused of a failure of psychological independence!

If my silence constitutes evasion, and my comment constitutes social metaphysics, what's a boy to do?

Let me point out that I'm employed full-time promoting Objectivism. It therefore is hardly a professional departure from a "self-interested life" for me to comment -- publicly, briefly, and in passing -- on some people's chronic warping of that philosophy from a tool of personal living, into an other-focused moral bludgeon. On this one thing, those people and I agree: the reputation of Objectivism is at stake, and protecting it is an issue of rational self-interest.


As to whether current commentaries by these individuals constitute "diatribes" and "screeds": like Patrick Henry, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and it is the lamp of experience." It is precisely their long, long history of moral jihadism that prompted me to refuse to read them any further. One does not have to continue eating the apple long after he has bitten into the worm.

Even so: Note that I did not comment on the contents of any post except those here on this thread. From my post #21:
I say this in principle only, because I haven't any specific idea of what Hsieh is accusing Sciabarra, or whether she provided sufficient evidence.

However, I do know that what some have described as a 12,000-plus-word personal denunciation -- following on the heels of several years of incessant posts denouncing others -- is as good a way as any to once again defer work on the requirements of an alleged scholarly career.


Robert C: Please note that the word I used to characterize her post was "denunciation," not "diatribe." That it was in fact a denunciation of Sciabarra is a characterization I have heard communicated by all of its readers so far.

Note too that my objection was not to the content of her post, or to the quality or adequacy of evidence she offered, of which I know nothing first-hand; it was to the very fact of such a public post -- it was to its subject: another public attack on somebody's personal moral character.

Does anyone wish to claim that this was not what her post was about?


Finally, and most importantly, I will happily recuse myself from self-defense while others ascribe to me the worst, most hypocritical of motives...in exchange for their addressing the four challenges I raised in my previous post about the warping of Objectivism into moral jihadism.

Or is the aim here to deflect attention from that substantive point, by now turning this into a preoccupation with my moral character? That would, ironically, only underscore the validity of the point.

Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 85

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 4:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jason writes: "The issue of private emails is certainly an interesting (and important one), but it is secondary and ultimately amounts to an argumentative diversion when arguments regarding the actual blog entry are absent."

Jason,

You are arguing from the stance that the ends justify the means. Public disclosure of sensitive personal correspondence of living people is barbaric. It is unethical. It is unprincipled. Like I asked John, perhaps you would be so kind to outline a standard in which this is not so? This is the primary issue here.

I have a very close friend, a businessman. Over dinner the other night he mentioned that some of his customers did not appreciate his more expensive quality products. He went into some detail in some of the people were virtually belligerent about the price of some of the products. His conversation with me is confidential, its private, its personal.. If I were to name his name and publish a flyer or take out an ad quoting him and his comments about a few customers–I would be an evil, disgusting son of a bitch.

I brought up this thread for one reason: Objectivist moral principles are based on the recognition of the ends and means should be worthy of one another. If one cannot do that then they cannot possibly claim any sort of moral stance. Conversely there are many good people who enjoy the goodwill and benefits of integrating ends and means into a total package and these are the people that other Objectivist to should look up to with respect.

What you are promoting is terribly unjust to everyone who is moral.

Cheers,

Michael


Post 86

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Jenna,

What RPG are you playing? That's a far more interesting topic

I agree! I was addicted to WoW for about 7 months. Currently, I'm loving Elder Scrolls Oblivion.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 87

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Newberry -- I think the people involved in this would claim that your analogy doesn't jive well with what happened in this instance.

What is being alleged is that one party SLANDERED two of his friends in an effort to manipulate a third friend in an email to him. This third person believed that slander was taking place and showed the email to the other two. One of these two decided to publish the parts of the emails that related to them on two public forums along with other contradictory private correspondences between them and the alleged slanderer.

I would not have done the same thing in a similar situation. But their argument (which I believe has merit) is that because there were lies about them being told to other people they had a right to challenge those lies publicly since they had no idea how many other people were being told the same things. So this I believe is their justification for posting these private messages.

I think this is an interesting issue for debate, but I don’t think my current opinion about it represents an immoral position. And because I am convinced that slander has taken place I believe that the uproar over the publishing of private emails is a secondary issue.

Since I believe that instances of slander justify the publication of private emails, I think that the issue of whether slander did or did not take place should be the primary issue Chris’s defenders ought to take up if they want to defend him. If they can succeed in establishing that no slander took place then the issue of publishing private emails would then become the primary issue.

In any case – I am not going to argue this particular point any further. If the people involved want to address this with you that is up to them. If they do I will watch what they have to say with some interest. My main reason for being on this thread is to establish the fact that Robert B (who happens to be a prominent person in the Objectivist movement) should refrain from making comments about things that are posted on SOLO until he has actually read them. I think I have succeeded in establishing that.

- Jason


(Edited by Jason Quintana
on 4/29, 5:53pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 88

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert B,

I stand corrected, as far as "diatribe" vs. "moral denunciation" is concerned.

No one needs to read all 12,000+ words to recognize that Ms. Hsieh's piece is intended as a moral denunciation of an individual.  The title and the first two or three paragraphs suffice to establish that.

Robert C


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 89

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 6:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

Its kind of odd, I understood what you said but I simply do not relate to your stance. Other solutions to the problem could be thought of without bridging the private/public problem.

One thing though is for certain I would never write you a personal note that was not meant for publication.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 4/29, 6:30pm)


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 If I were to name his name and publish a flyer or take out an ad quoting him and his comments about a few customers–I would be an evil, disgusting son of a bitch.
That is so true, Michael.
Ya'know, good people do good. That means if you think you've caught a friend in a lie, you confront the friend about it FIRST, before dumping it on the whole world. Confronting the friend via screaming to the whole world is really using poor judgement. The whole fucking world doesn't give a flying fuck about your relationships, or why you have them, or why you don't.

 Being lied to is horrible. Not confronting the liar directly is cowardly.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 91

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 6:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Other solutions to the problem could be thought of without bridging the private/public problem." (Michael)

I agree with this 100%. And as I noted above, I would not have handled a similar situation that involved me in the same way, but I do think that such an action can be justified in certain circumstances for reasons explained above.

- Jason
(Edited by Jason Quintana
on 4/29, 6:48pm)


Post 92

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason Quintana wrote,
I would not have done the same thing in a similar situation. But their argument (which I believe has merit) is that because there were lies about them being told to other people they had a right to challenge those lies publicly since they had no idea how many other people were being told the same things. So this I believe is their justification for posting these private messages.
I haven't read Diana's post, so I can't comment on the specifics, but what Jason says makes sense. If lies are being told about someone behind the person's back and the victim doesn't know who has been lied to, then in order to clear his or her name, it may be necessary to confront the lies publicly, even if doing so requires posting the liar's private messages. Normally, private emails containing sensitive information are confidential, but the confidentiality is no longer binding, if defending one's reputation against deliberate deception requires their exposure.

- Bill

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 93

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

The circle involved here is microscopic in size and scope. I would certainly agree if it involved huge numbers of people, but there's no evidence to think it did. To merely assume it did involve thousands of individuals, and to use that as justification a for "kiss and tell" public clam bake is a mistake.  It would suggest the confidence of everyone involved in the tiny circle was suspect, and I just doubt that's the case.  Geeze, I'm holding on to stuff told to me in confidence over 20 years ago!  Objectivists, I know, are a group of people that take enormous pride in personal integrity.

If Chris was spreading untruths, then asking they not be repeated, chance are they weren't. 

I don't want to think Diana is the kind of person who would deliberately try to isolate Chris, or estrange him from would be allies to his work through this humiliating "outing" that only involved a handful of people, but it really smacks of intellectual cleansing to me.  It's embarrassing.


Post 94

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, this case interested me, because obviously Diana not only thinks that Chris is rude, but also thinks his credibility as a scholar is not the best.
I can't decide on the given evidence, because there is need for those "insulted" people to speak up and confirm Chris "undoings".

However, I'd like to know whether Chris has responded to this one way or the other, because ultimately we have to hear the other side, before making a judgement.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 95

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think  this is a campaign  against homosexuality.
A big percentage of new objectivists are homos, and this because of  Linz, and Sciabarra.
No one wants to admit it, but it is true that homosexuals are in millions and  have the power to change the world, and they will change objectivism as well.
At ARI, many of them, are shitting in their pants. 
You can consider me a Freudian, if you wish, but that's what I see. 

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 4/30, 1:36pm)


Post 96

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 1:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is why Mr Perigo didn't not inferred, as much as
he did in previous similar circomstances.
 

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 4/30, 1:51pm)


Post 97

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A Freudian :) Just in time to a celebrating year in Vienna ;)

Well, may be it is, or it is not, but I'd really like to read a response by Sciabarra sometime. It is his side of this story, I am interested in. Those were serious and defaming claims that were brought forth.

P.S.:

It seems there are also role-players here :) As a German I will always stick to DSA (Das Schwarze Auge / The Black Eye ;) ), although I have also played D&D for a time, but the socerers were too strong.

Post 98

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan:

Gaming: Right now I have two groups of friends who I game with. The groups don't know each other; I met them separately.

One group invited me to their group-held tournament Saturday (it ran from 4pm-3am). I used to be a housemate of one of them. I've got pictures here (you must be 18+ to enter for adult language reasons [smile]). They played Magic: the Gathering all day; it's a game I've played on and off for 10 years. We also play Cataan (and similar), Illuminati, etc. when it's casual and not competition.

The other group invites me to D&D with them. I might one day in May, if everyone is in town at the same time.

Since both groups are partnered, 35+, professionals, some with children, these gaming days are rare.

I also used to play World of Warcraft but had to stop because I was getting too addicted. Now my friends tell me there's Elder Scrolls, which has really good graphics [insert panic--- I'm a sucker for great graphics]. I also used to play Diablo, also on PS, PS2, Xbox... my first time video gaming was Atari.

Yes, I have a cool video card on my computer. I know I'm a geek-- tho not as bad as my friends. I haven't memorized specific cards, characters, plots, etc. to that extent. :)

Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Post 99

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro, you wrote (in post 95):

"I think  this is a campaign  against homosexuality. "

And then (in post 96):

"This is why Mr Perigo didn't not inferred, as much as
he did in previous similar circomstances."

(a) I don't follow the logic of that. Are you saying you think Diana is campaigning against homosexuality, and that that's why Linz didn't interfere (I assume you meant "didn't" interfere, instead of "didn't not")? But Linz himself is homosexual; so is Joe Maurone.

(b) As to Linz's not interfering, he was actively involved. The sequence was that Chris S. sent a private email to Joe Maurone, who then sent it to Diana and Linz, one or both of whom in turn shared it with James Valliant (and maybe with others too, but at least with James Valliant), and that Linz shared with Valliant at least one other private email from Chris (Valliant has said in SOLOPass posts that he's seen this material).

As to the issue of Chris' responding: (a) Diana hasn't presented enough of a case to demonstrate anything except that Chris made a couple over-the-top remarks in anger; her supposed demonstration of his immorality amounts to her opinion; (b) consider what he'd have to do in order to respond: he'd have to quote full texts of private correspondence, both his own AND THEIRS, and discuss the contexts, which would mean still more breaching of THEIR privacy, as well as of his. My belief is that they're counting on the very integrity the absence of which they claim to be demonstrating.

Ellen


___

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.