Ayn Rand Smeared Again

Let me help you fellas.

I'm just a translator (Portuguese to English), not a legal expert. So the non-technical English dictionary I use is a common one - The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (which, btw, is used as standard issue to civil servants in the USA government - at least this is what was issued to my mother when she was one of the secretaries to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover).

I will cite the legal definition given therein to correspond to the "public court of law" metaphor of Jame's book.

evidence - 3. Law The documentary or verbal statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

By what new standard or definition of the word "evidence" would a published declaration of love not be considered as documentary evidence of such love by the author?

Please enlighten me.

To borrow a phrase, inquiring minds seek instruction.

Michael

Post 261

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:42am

"God knows what she wrote about me!" is an interesting form in which to "prepare" for debate about the material. "It's all a pack of lies, whatever is in there!" still more curious. But, you say, no sign of fear... well, o.k.

Publication does not transform the arbitrary into something more.

Post 262

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:53am

James,

Great. We are getting somewhere. Is it fair to say the following then? The fear you posit Nathaniel was sweating over is your own speculation of Nathaniel's motives for writing what he did based merely on your own deductions from these statements alone - and not based on anyone else's written or verbal evidence that Branden handles uncomfortable issues fearfully.

Is that fair?

Also, do you have any thoughts on redefining the word "evidence" to exclude Barbara's published account of her love of Frank as evidence?

(Whether you deem such evidence to be arbitrary or factual is beside the point right now. Your implication was that my scenario was not based on any evidence at all.)

Michael

Post 263

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:59am

Brendan wrote:

I agree that the disease model of alcoholism is misplaced, since disease implies an organic malfunction, and as far as I am aware, there is no organic basis for alcoholism.

What do you consider an "organic malfunction"?

Behavioral disorders are often malfunctions in the purposive sense - we argue that this *should* be the *proper* function, and that the current function is a malfunction because it doesn't fulfil the proper function.

Addiction is in part a result of certain hormonal imbalances. It has both a neurological basis and a cultural basis. If a grandmaster is addicted to chess playing, he is addicted to his job. But if I'm addicted to chess playing, I'm ruining my life.

The idea that addiction has a type of neurological basis doesn't mean that it isn't a proper subject for harsh moral judgment (after all, writing and reading have a basis in our neurology). However, the fact that addiction has a neurological basis does mean that you have to be clearer about this "organic malfunction" thing - hormonal imbalances can be malfunctions if we know what the original function was *supposed* to be.

Laj.

Post 264

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:24am

MSK,

I think that my inference is clear and solid. I will not play games regarding the terms "speculation" and "arbitrary." Forgive me, but the day job calls.

Post 265

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:05am

Not back by any means.. Just buzzing about.

But your posts, Michael, remind me of an old Shakespeare Parody in "At the Drop Of a Hat" There is a line there-in that goes like this: "Wise words, in mouths of fools, do oft themselves belie." Not so much because your words are wise -- me thinks, indeed, that they are mush -- but rather, that in mouthing them one displays one's foolishness.

Me thinks, indeed, m'lord, thine words, they are
As Shakespeare said of life "a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Now, I know you would like us all to believe that these words should apply to James' book, but if 'signifying nothing' applies to it, why all the sound and fury?

It is the general tactic of those who haven't got a leg to stand on to wave their arms excitedly in the hope that onlookers will not notice their absence. What else but arm-waving mush can one make of "the fear you posit...is your own speculation of Nathaniel's motives for writing what he did based merely on your own deductions from these statements alone -- and not based on anyone else's written or verbal evidence that Branden handles uncomfortable issues fearfully." In other words, sans arm-waving, "do you dare to draw conclusions from Branden's own words and consider those words as evidence when other people disagree with you. Do you really presume to base your views on your own deductions instead of considering MY interpretation."

Yep.

I noticed the absence of legs a while back. That's why I left. That's why I merely buzz about.

Tom

Post 266

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:06am

James,

Do have a good day at your job.

I am sorry that you feel that arriving at clear definitions and stating clearly what you mean are nothing but "word games."

You have stated unequivocally that you will not comment on my scenario because it is based on lack of evidence. I provided the evidence. It is published and right under your nose. So you called it arbitrary, continue to ignore it and now call it word games.

I have heard this type of behavior called evading the issue. Are you evading this particular issue? It seems like it at this point.

Why are you so reluctant to entertain the following possibility? A woman publishes a statement that she loved another human being she knew for many years (Frank). She is telling the truth about that.

Is that not possible?

You call Barbara's statement of love arbitrary, yet for the life of me, I cannot see where all those years make such a statement of love arbitrary. I see the exact opposite. It is very normal for someone to love another they have known for many years.

Also, when you add to it all those wonderful things she wrote about Frank's gentle and kind nature in her book (shall I make a list of them?), I have an even greater problem with this arbitrary evaluation of yours.

Calling something arbitrary and it actually being arbitrary are two very different things. I am sure you do not need me to point that out to you. That is why your sidestepping this issue and making an unfounded opinion (a quite arbitrary one in my view, to tell the truth) is perplexing.

I only brought up the Nathaniel business as an example because you made the amazing claim that you did not make speculations based on lack of evidence when your book is full of such speculations.

Are these considerations "word games" or is your avoiding this issue a specific instance of evasion?

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 11:20am)

Post 267

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:17am

Tom,

LOLOLOLOLOLOL... (benevolent laughter)

(Thanks for the Shakespeare.)

I was just making a point. A man (Mr. Valliant) says that he does not speculate on certain issues. I say that he does and give an example from his own book. He says that it was fact, not speculation. I ask for evidence. He says, OK, speculation, but damn good speculation.

That was my point.

Speculation.

He does it a lot.

Not all that arm flailing. I imagine that those who make unfounded statements, like Mr. Valliant did, are doing a bit of arm flailing, but I haven't thought too much about this particular image in regards to him.

It is quite funny. I'll give you that.

(Why on earth would a man say that he does not speculate like that when he does it a lot? Frankly, I am at a loss to explain this.)

Michael

Post 268

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:23am

Let me ask you this, Michael.

When a man hits his wife, repeatedly, and says he's sorry, then hits her again, and then, when brought to court for killing her, says, "I love my wife," are we really supposed to believe that such a statement constitutes evidence of his love????

Au contraire, mon friere.

That's arm waving without a leg to stand on.

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 9/14, 11:25am)

Post 269

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:26am

"It's only a flesh wound!"

Post 270

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:27am

Tom,

Only if he publishes a book stating his deep, abiding love.

Casey

Post 271

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:39am

Uhmmmm...

Let's see if I got this right.

Barbara alleging alcoholism - publishing it in fact - is evidence of malicious lying. Documentary evidence.

Barbara alleging love, kind acts and gentleness - publishing it in the same place as above - is not evidence of anything at all. It is merely arbitrary, and even insinuated to be indicative of more malicious lying or hypocrisy at best. The fact that it is documentary and from the same source is a mere coincidence and has no bearing on it being evidence or not.

The only thing published in that book that constitutes evidence is the alcoholism part.

Hmmmmmmmm...

What am I missing with this reasoning? Why am I not bowled over with the sheer logic?

Michael

Edit - btw Tom. I see serious problems with this particular comparison. I prefer to stick to the issue rather than dissect motives and behavior in a brutal murder. I know it is exaggeration by poetic license, but my suggestion is at least to define our terms, which still have not been agreed to. Then flights of fancy might have more impact.
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 11:57am)

Post 272

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:15pm

Maybe because you're not very logical, in general.

1. Person A makes a terrible accusation against Person B in print after Person B's death with no credible evidence, and that baseless accusation supplies a justification for Person A's own atrocious behavior.

2. Person A claims to really love the person smeared. Claiming love for Person B makes the smear seem more credible than saying "I hate this person and resent what happened to me and I'm going to smear this person to make my own behavior look justifiable" would.

3. Michael Kelly still believes in proposition 2 and even uses it to validate the terrible accusation in proposition 1.

Really, Michael, investigate the subject of logical fallacies: ad hominem (your posts are rife with examples), argument from authority (Barbara Branden PUBLISHED this!), argument from intimidation ("LOLOLOLOL"), the straw man fallacy (Barbara's indisputable act of charging alcoholism is equivalent to her claim of loving Frank), etc., etc., etc.

You employ all of these on a regular basis, and it's a turn-off to engaging in discussion. If you're not prepared to think logically you can't keep demanding of others that they go to the trouble of reassembling reason every time you aggressively smash it to smithereens. If we argued the same way you do everything would degenerate into gibberish. And maybe that's the goal?

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/14, 12:18pm)

Post 273

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:59pm

Casey,

I simply asked before if Valliant considered it within the realm of possibility that Barbara Branden held love and compassion for Frank O'Connor and had been mistaken on the alcoholism issue, but reported it in good faith.

I didn't ask him to agree. I asked him if it were possible.

Neither him nor you replied to this question. You talked around it. Said you won't answer it. Called it word games. Now implied that it is gibberish.

My, my, my.

When I take your own premises - like evidence - at their face value, you get angry, talk about ad hominem, argument from intimidation and whatnot.

(As an aside, the Barbara publishing thing was not used as argument from authority - please pay attention to what you read, at least with my own posts. It was merely a form of characterizing the evidence James said did not exist. Well it does as far as I can see and you have given me no reason to doubt whether it is. I have stated specifically - in that context - that I was not yet examining the value of the evidence, but whether it was evidence at all - so there is no authority to argue from yet. I also have not "validated" that Frank was an alcoholic through Barbara or any other source - I specifically stated that I can only judge what others are saying on this, so I have no opinion - 50-50 proposition, which basically means nothing at all. Once again, please pay attention to what you read when you attribute positions - your lack of attention leads you to make mistakes like that.)

(Also, frankly, some of your own posts have been pretty irrational, especially the "my suffering will put your suffering to shame" stuff. I would clean that stuff up before calling someone else not very logical, but then consistency is a virtue I strive toward. I understand that not everyone does.)

My question is not rocket science, Casey. A simple yes or no would do admirably.

It is not an unreasonable question, either.

If painting by booze bottle is a reasonable possibility to you guys, why is a mistake and good faith by Barbara Branden so unreasonable a possibility on this issue (qua possibility)?

What makes this potato so hot?

I do believe that you find me tiring because I do not agree with you and insist on questions that simply will not go away merely because you want them to - by blank out.

Rational minds require rational explanations. Not answering a simple question is no explanation at all. It is evasion.

Michael

Post 274

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 1:41pm

It's my birthday today and so it's that time of year to take stock of one's life and express love for everyone in my life, so let me begin with all of you: You're all drunks.

Casey

Post 275

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:13pm

Heavens, I should hope so, Casey. Anyone who isn't a drunk will be excommunicated.

Happy Birthday! :-)

Linz

Post 276

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:18pm

ahem...

Does ex-drunk count?

Happy birthday, Casey.

Michael

Post 277

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:26pm

Marvin said

clearly a lot of people need ayn rand.

Just to take up the role of the devil's advocate, I think we should remember that a lot of people also need God, Jesus, the Klu Klux Klan, and naziism (or so they feel.) I think its important you draw the line between intellectual seduction and intellectual necessity- either you "need" them based upon an irrational whim, or you feel it is an intellectual necessity to understand and, to some extent, rely upon them (or their works.)

Post 278

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:46pm

Linz,

Thanks, and cheers!

Michael,

Thanks and bless you for that.

Casey

Post 279

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:18pm