It is most unfortunate, seen from the humane and, thus, also the intellectual side of it, that finally people like Brady Lenardo, Leibniz and Claude Shannon have to be confined to the area of Dissent, mostly due to the fact that there comes a time when the few shreds of composure with which they start attacking reason and its strict bulwark, Objectivism, breaks down to reveal their real character, filled with offensiveness, malicious remarks, snideness and scorn, rejection to recognize proven facts, presenting evidently false statements which they leave unanswered as soon as these assertions are pointed out as the evident straw men they are, gratuitously trying to heap ridicule on the challenger without giving any hint of the reason for doing so, and accusing the opponent of being what he evidently is not. Unable to demonstrate the existence of any "god" (which they know is required to place their "arguments" on the firm ground they need but lack) and unwilling to accept the proofs of its nonexistence (which I demonstrated in "Ayn Rand, I and the Universe", thus making their "argumentation" fallacious and, hence, unnecessary); unwilling to recognize the total lack of morality of their religious "systems" and unable to accept the correctness of the Objectivist morality, they live in a mesh of falseness and the contradictions that result from it.
However, confining such people to an area where they can no longer spew their venom and maliciousness and where they know that any newcomer will immediately know that they have been isolated due to their disgusting behavior, is the utmost civil way in which they can be treated, particularly when the fact is considered that at other times and even today, in other so-called "cultures", antagonists are imperiled with persecution, torture and/or murder, as soon as it becomes evident that groundless "arguments" have run aground on the firm terrain of reason (the attack against the Danish cartoonists and the killing of Theo van Gogh prove this sufficiently).
Hence, there is a deep sense of historic justice when confining such people into the area of "Dissent". Since men of reason thoroughly reject having to use force against any opponent, this way of procedure is the clearly intellectual manner to lecture that while we are at all times ready to discuss everything in a civil manner (Alas, every discussion can bring up treasures of thought of which Objectivists themselves are sometimes unaware!), we are by no means standing in line for the onslaught of hatefulness and further offensive behavior. As John Armaos said in Post 103 of "Religion is Totalitarian", nobody should "be surprised to see a little retaliation once in a while in response to an endless barrage of insults".
All this is a additional testimony that in a society based on reason, which is an Objectivist society, malignant manners originating in groundless hostility (since Objectivists, following the basic rules of their philosophy, are not allowed to initiate any kind of force against anyone wanting to peacefully follow the sound of another drum) will only be tolerated up to the point where the opponent shows his evidently hostile purpose.
Perhaps - and hopefully -, the Objectivist way will finally penetrate their up to now impervious but wrong standpoint. Though for the time being such change in the way things have been handled up to now can, unfortunately, be only applied in small areas such as "Rebirth of Reason, it is, at any rate, the clear testimony of a new kind of justice in that Objectivist society that is slowly but steadily built by its early followers.
|
