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 unread


Post 0

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In case it hasn't already been made clear, the question which Robert has chosen to repeat is a dishonest one. Unspecified charges are always wrong. They are epistemologically wrong because they are arbitrary. The questioner wants his unsupported words to be treated the same as statements for which actual evidence or other valid support has been provided. That amounts to the altruistic demand that the listener do the speaker's work for him. And it's personally immoral. Unspecified charges and unsupported accusations amount to smears, smears which, since they are unspecific, the accused cannot even answer, and should not need to answer without cause. Beside improper insults in the context of etiquette, such accusations can, depending on context amount to libel, slander, and criminal defamation as well as contempt of court.

Observe the motivation of the person above. Is it intellectually honest? When challenged we see that what was posed as an "intellectual" question was intended as an attack both on the subject of the question and the people to whom the question was addressed.

Unspecified charges and unsupported accusations are immoral smears at best and, in the end, the substance of show trials and lynchings.

They have no place within an Objectivist community.


That's funny stuff.

Here's some more funny stuff from Harry Binswanger:

I advise you to stay away from [Burns' book Goddess of the Market], for the reason I gave in an earlier post: it is almost impossible to keep all the false and slanted "facts" out of your subconscious "file folders." Not only would reading it, quite unjustly, tend to diminish your admiration for Ayn Rand, you are very likely, years later, to treat as fact that which is false or arbitrary.


(Rational subconscious premises might be tampered with by such E-vil influences as Kant or that Burns book.)

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You ass. You made the accusation Rand forbade her friends from reading Kant because his ideas would seep into their subconscious. Instead of providing any source for this, you quote Harry Binswanger?

You must have a miserable life if your sole purpose here on RoR is to try and discredit Rand and Objectivism.

Instead of doing your study on paranoia, how about trying to make some friends? Who knows, you might actually be a happy person for it.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 9:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"You ass" wrote -

You ass. You made the accusation Rand forbade her friends from reading Kant


Did I? Or are you evading the facts of reality, "you ass"?

In fact, I asked in that thread-

What if someone here were to note that at one point in the 1960s Ayn Rand advised the Collective not to read Kant because it might corrupt their subconscious premises? Does this also constitute a smear because there is no cite included?


As you can see from this and from the original post, I used the word advised, and not forbade.

Try again, liar.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are a miserable human being.




Post 4

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 10:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok, and I suppose being a "miserable human being" is also a moral crime in the Objectivist community?

Yes, indeed it is.

Post 5

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 7:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert -

Are you intent on being banned, or what?  Mixing up threads, subjects, and members is so inappropriate, I don't know where to start.


Post 6

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 8:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

You wrote:
Are you intent on being banned, or what? Mixing up threads, subjects, and members is so inappropriate, I don't know where to start.


Unspecified charges and unsupported accusations are immoral smears at best and, in the end, the substance of show trials and lynchings.


Post 7

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I received a notice at the is it true that Rand forbade her associates to read certain things? thread stating "This site is for Objectivists. You may continue to post on the Dissent board only."

Kate Gladstone, who lists herself as a non-Objectivist, apparently has the ability to post to that thread because she just did so.

I'm not asking that Kate Gladstone be limited to the dissent forum, I am only asking two things:

Rational? Consistent?

Post 8

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 6:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Keele,

This is not a comment on the ongoing discussion, but I've been curious about the Avatar you use for your photo. In the tiny box provided, it looks like Darth Vader in a Hula skirt. I presume it is not, but instead some local statue of your acquaintance. What is it?

jt

Post 9

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 6:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay, your guess was correct.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0000_14.shtml#280


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.