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 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 80

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To those of you upset about my remarks to Perigo, I have nothing to say to you.  What I said I said to Perigo.  (One small exception:  Rowlands, lay off the hero worship.  Pace Rand, worship of any kind has no place in Objectivism.)

Pukszta




Post 81

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong & Level,

First thing I'd like to say is thanks to Level for injecting a little rationality into this discussion about my "love of Objectivism".

As to you, Hong, let me first correct a faux pas.  Thank you for defending me against Jeanine's curse.  My previous omission was because I didn't feel the need for any defense considering the absurdity of the situation.  It was not because of a lack of gratitude.

Now to your current remarks.

[1] Let's start with, "I can't hep but wondering may be there was some merit in Jeanine assertions - although I'd be more than glad if I am proving wrong."

What am I supposed to prove to you to show that there's no merit in Jeanine statement that I should die because I think sex is for adults not children?

[2] Next, you wrote, "There was only one other person on this board who had 'suffered' a similar attack from Jeanine, and that was Orion Reasoner. I'd have to give it to her that she sure could smell a bigot from miles away."

I'll agree with the scare-quotes around "suffered", because I clearly suffered nothing from Jeanine's silliness.  Otherwise, what complete bilge to suggest that I'm a bigot because of some sort of magical powers possessed by Jeanine to be able to detect that I am a bigot from the content of a single post in which I stated that sex is for adults not children.

[3] Finally, you wrote, "I am alerted by your use of language such as 'love of Objectivism' and 'defender of Objectivism' in a context strikingly similar to that of 'love of the Christ' or 'defender of the Church of Christ/Objectivism'. Such altitude would really be the undoing of the philosophy of Objectivism."

How does defending Objectivism and having a passion for the way it so efficiently explicates the truth corrupt it?  Isn't it one of Perigo's objectives to promote the passion that a genuine understanding of Objectivism can stir in a person?  Aren't you reading too much into what is nothing more than a turn of phrase, Hong?

Let me wrap up by saying that I have no animus against you, Hong, for misunderstanding me.  I appreciate that you did voice your concerns so that I could address them.  But, I'll be honest.  I would have prefered it if you had read what I wrote a little more closely first.  I think that if you had, your concerns would have been allayed.  If I may connect what has happened here to a larger theme, I believe many Objectivists read too much into advocacy of more or less traditional relationships in marriage and family.  Just because non-Objectivists endorse these things, it does not mean there are necessarily wrong.  Objectivists have the advantage of possessing a tool, called Objectivism, that provides a way to sort out which traditions work and which don't.  The fact that I have concluded that Objectivism supports certain methods of parenting (like what I have argued here) that happen to accord with what traditionalists do does not mean anything more than that.  You cannot make the leap from that, based upon the evidence of a mere turn of phrase, that I am operating on faith and embrace Objectivism as a religion.

Pukszta




Post 82

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

You ask, "Why assume that you can't?"

I was being facetious.  I believe most parents cannot meet the standard you advocate.  That said, you are a remarkable father for being able to do so.

Pukszta




Post 83

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rooster, surely anyone reading Joe's defense of Lindsay is able to recognize that Joe writes not out of "worship" but out of respect and admiration. And I second his objections to your post.

Barbara



Post 84

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rooster,

Say what you want about Rowlands, but he is not a butt kiss sycophant.

George





Post 85

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

Perigo is fortunate to have such loyal comrades to circle the wagons for him.  I thank you and Rowlands for the backhanded compliment of doing so.  I hadn't thought myself to be a big enough fish in this pond to merit the trouble.

R. Pukszta




Post 86

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cordero,

I'll take your word for it and offer my apologies to Rowlands.  He went over the top with his attempt to psychologize me through the ether of the internet, but his loyalty to Perigo (assuming it's rationally given) is a virtue - a mixture of the Objectivist virtues of justice and benevolence, I would hazard - and so Rowlands is to be credited with that.

R. Pukszta




Post 87

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pukszta,

Thanks for your response. It certainly appears that I've read too much into nothing. My apologies. 

In reality, you probably won't find many people more traditional in family and children matters than me. Now what are we arguing about?!

But I still think what you said to Linz and Rowland are uncalled for. There's no need to be rude. Well, hopefully after you are here long enough, you'll understand them better.  





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 88

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christ what a thread!

George,

Don't take this the wrong way, but has it ever occurred to you that responses such as yours from other Objectivists are precisely the reason Jeanine is so critical of the philosophy? (which I assume is what Adam was getting at above.)You insist on attacking her as a person in a manner that bears no relation to her ideas, rather than simply responding to her ideas. Even now you persist in calling her Mr!

MH




Post 89

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

You are right.  My aside to Rowlands was snotty and I did apologize for it.  As for being to rude to Perigo, he (or no one else) can complain.  I employed the Perigo Paradigm for debate, which I discovered by lurking for awhile before signing onto this forum.  According the Perigo Paradigm, I can be as mean, rotten, cruel, and rude as I want so long I am giving voice to authentic passion in service to a rational argument.

Pukszta




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I share MH's utter amazement at this thread, which appears to be aiming for a Guinness Book of World Records' slot.  Put the Christ back in Christmas and move on already!

But, uh, Mr. Puke, it does appear that you have now went way over the line.  "The Perigo Paradigm"?  Oh Lord.  Lindsay would kill me for using that word "Paradigm."  I would not be surprised if he bans you for life from SOLO HQ just for conjoining that word to his last name.

When I have employed that word, he has claimed that I am speaking "Polish" (his word for "academese").  But, uh, Mr. Puke, I think you are Polish, n'est-ce pas?

He might grant you a special dispensation.  I'm only half-Greek and half-Sicilian, so I can't get away with it.  :)

I'll just get back to the manicotti, meatballs, and spare ribs-in-the-sauce leftovers from Christmas Dinner.

Happy New Year, folks.




Post 91

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sciabarra,

No doubt Perigo expects more of you than me.  Even so, anyone with an ear for these things has to admit "Perigo's Paradigm" does have a ring to it.

R. Pukszta

P.S.  Yes, the name is Polish and should be pronounced as in Polish, "pook-shta".  I am, however, 100% American.




Post 92

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Diabolical Dialectical wrote:

"But, uh, Mr. Puke, it does appear that you have now went way over the line.  'The Perigo Paradigm'?  Oh Lord.  Lindsay would kill me for using that word 'Paradigm.'"

I shall in fact kill you twice, Diabolical (anything is possible for a dialectician after all): once for repeating "Perigo Paradigm" and once for writing "you have now went ..."

YOU HAVE NOW WENT?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

And *you*, assistant editor of the FreeRad & all!!

Actually, I shall then kill you a *third* time, just so that we have a nice dialectical triad on our hands.

Heh! 
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 12/27, 12:53am)




Post 93

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

I sent you a PM.

George




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 94

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
hehe

"But, uh, Mr. Puke, it does appear that you have now went way over the line..."
"YOU HAVE NOW WENT?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!," says Linz...


Whattsa matta wichu?  Donchu know Brooklynese when u see it?  It's more better than "academese"... :)




Post 95

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At Jeanine's invitation, I recently joined her Salon Total Freedom Yahoo group. She asked that the below be posted on SOLOHQ.

MH

******
"It has been recently claimed that, in offering my help to children
forbidden to pursue romantic love by their parents, I was giving
a "velied solicitation" of my services. I want to state this is not
true. I have seen situations before like this, and it is not unknown
for culturally liberal persons to provide resources to evade
culturally conservative parential control. I mentioned that I am an
escort in this context as a matter of honesty, since it is something
anyone should know before taking the risk of dealing with me, and
additionally because as all here know I am a Pagan sex worker, and
both interference with parential restrictions and hospitality to
nonconformists have been traditional functions of Pagan sex work
cultures for millenia, and I include those traditions in my own
spritual practice of the Life. What I was offering was a window in
the wall of society for romantic passion, which I hold in the very
highest regard; this offer was serious, continues to be serious, and
it is a practice I intend to continue myself and encourage further
within contemporary sex worker subculture.

As for whether I would accept business from minors, my answer is that
I have nothing in principle against sexual relations with the young,
though given that this would be extremely legally dangerous I would
only do so very carefully, and furthermore I would not accept
business for an aspiring mind if I believe it would be harmful to
their growth or idealism. This is not a matter of moralism but of
professional standards of not knowingly taking business that would
harm instead of benefit my clients. In the case of the young I would
excercise more care, not because I think sexuality is harmful to
young persons but because I would exercise more ethical care
generally with the young, whom on balance I find to be superior in
spirit to those who have had to make the compromises of maturity, and
I would fear to take part in establishing a psychology of guilty
compromise which it is much of my business in life to oppose.

On a final note, I use the term 'escort' in public forums because
that is my necessary formal and public job description, not because I
prefer it to traditional terms for sex work or which to dignify my
profession by social class; class status and conventional success are
to my mind irrational values and I do not seek them.

Thank you.

Jeanine Ring )(*)("






Post 96

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
*out of the abyss*

So she'd screw a kid if 1) she thought they might "benefit" from it, and 2) if she could get away with it.

Gotcha.  Didn't really need the rest.

*back into the abyss*




Post 97

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"If painted Fortune pass your door,
Seize her and bear her in and tumble her;
She has the soul of any whore,
Do what you will you cannot humble her:
Throw all your gold about and she will stay,
Try to economise and she's away."

From the Tale of Sweet-Friend and Ali-Nur, the thirty-third night page 286 of the first volume of The Thousand Nights and One Night translated by Mardrus and Mathers.





Post 98

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Newberry wrote:
If painted Fortune pass your door,
Seize her and bear her in and tumble her;
She has the soul of any whore,
Do what you will you cannot humble her:
Throw all your gold about and she will stay,
Try to economise and she's away."

From the Tale of Sweet-Friend and Ali-Nur, the thirty-third night page 286 of the first volume of The Thousand Nights and One Night translated by Mardrus and Mathers.




I reply, just as randomly:

killer_dog.jpg

I hate poems when regular sentences will do just fine.  : P

(and people who say they'll screw kids if they think they can get away with it.  Yes, that's right, h-a-t-e.)




Post 99

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree. I found the post forwarded by Matt vile. My defensiveness on Jeanine's behalf was misplaced.

Linz



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.