|Bob Mac quoted me as follows - "As I said in a previous post, just because someone is not entirely supportive of Rand or Objectivism, it doesn't follow that he or she is unworthy of our respect; it depends on how corrupt the person's values are." - and replied |
Assuming that any rational disagreement is the result of a corruption of values explains quite a lot. This is even more cultish behaviour than just taking offense as Cal explained. I replied, "Why would you assume that I regard the disagreement as rational, if I thought it reflected philosophically corrupt ideas?" He replied,
The non-specific, or generalized character of the statement of yours that I quoted is offensive to me. I inferred, and you corroborated, my conclusion that you assume that all dissent is rooted in corruption. Obviously, "corrupt" was a poor choice of words. I certainly didn't mean it in the sense of immoral or depraved, but in the sense of flawed, and probably should have used that term instead. What I was getting at is that just because a person has a disagreement with Objectivism, it doesn't mean that the person is unworthy of respect. But if his disagreement is based on serious philosophical errors, then he would be unworthy of it. Also, I'm not saying that the people I disagree with are "corrupt" human beings; I would never say that, and if I gave that impression, I apologize. Nor am I saying that they don't deserve my respect. I certainly respect Cal's views, which I think are often well argued, even if I don't always agree with them. What I don't respect (and don't understand) is his attitude of always attacking Rand and her supporters and never defending them. I was quite surprised to learn that he liked Atlas Shrugged enough to read it multiple times, which has left me wondering whence comes his hatred for Objectivism and his evident failure to appreciate some of Rand's more insightful contributions.
First you said corrupted "values" then you wrote "philosophically corrupt ideas". I do not believe you wrote "corrupt" in the sense of simple error, which is a legitimate usage of the word. I think you wrote corrupt purposefully and meant it in the more usual meaning of the word : Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved. No, as I say, I did not mean it in the sense of perverse or depraved, but in the sense of flawed.
This attitude oozes from your posts, even when you've been shown to be in error. You wonder why things get "prickly" and personal?? This also explains quite nicely when you encounter a rational objection you so often digress into fallacy - nowhere else to go. Bob, there's no way I can respond to this except to deny it; it's just a nasty accusation with nothing to back it up. You wrote,
The problem is that Cal has not just aired his disagreements, he has pointed out errors. There's a big difference. To which I replied, "Why do you assume that I agree with this when it's obvious I don't. And if you don't assume it, then why are you stating this as if it were a self-evident truth?" You responded,
Because in these cases, reality demands that you do. Bob, this makes no sense. Why state something that you know I don't agree with as if you thought that I did, and that give as your reason the fact that you think I should? How does that further the argument? If you just want to engage in arbitrary assertions, be my guest, but I'm not going to participate in the discussion, if that's all you do.
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/31, 7:22pm)