| | 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
|
|
