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 1


Post 20

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please explain Phirehammer.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Only Joe knows if intended to call me a liar. I can only go by three things: The words in that sentence, the context of those words, and what Joe says after I object. He was using the pronoun "you" in the preceding two paragraph which starts off with Erica's post. That, as a context, has me there since this is about my response to her. And in the paragraphs that follow his accusation the statements clearly are about me (e.g., "your own argument..."). Add to that his reply which does not say, "I did not intend that understanding" or anything like that. I objected to being called a liar, and no reply to that was forthcoming.

You said, "Why did you reply so quickly to Erica with your first post in this thread? What she said wasn't an attack on you, and didn't say about Paul what your response implied had been said. It was like you saw the thread, saw the name Ron Paul, and became possessed..." Ted... :-) Is this really a timing issue? If I had been at the supermarket or the gym when Erica entered her post it would never have been a case of me being possessed?

Is it only acceptable to make replies where one is a disinterested party? Are replies that arises from a belief or value evidence one is a robotic, possessed person? Or that I should not make a reply if it isn't an attack on me? Give me a break!

You say, "This is, of course, a parody. But, do you get the point?" Actually, Ted, the point seems to be putting up a parody that paints an unflattering picture of me that has nothing to do with the issues in Erica's post, my reply, or Joe's accusation. I really can't see any point that is palatable.

I have been an Objectivist since the late 60's, but I have spent most of that time going about my own life and I'm relatively new to the online forums. (My first post on any forum was here - January 1, 2007.) I was struck by the fighting, not with the enemies of reason, but with each other - all the factions - all the sniping and squabbling. Next I was struck with the nutcases (not too many of these, but some) and how many anarchists had sprung up - like weeds. I mention my history because it has a lot to do with my reactions to what I see here at ROR and how I think we should be:
  • I think we should NOT be vicious towards those that share our basic principles, while being clear about differences or perceived shortcomings.
  • I think we should be totally intolerant towards those that do NOT share those basic principles (anarchists, for example) - but this doesn't mean warring with them - it means putting them out and closing the door.
  • I think we should be gracious and supporting to those that fight for our principles and are helping take us where we want to go.

I see Ron Paul as the only holder of a national office that supports a truly free market, and the only national office holder who understands Austrian Economics. Then add to that being a nominee for president. To me, that is a something to support. If he has some major flaws (I haven't seen these newsletters that make him a racist and I have never heard or read anything racist from him) that would be different. I always preface remarks about him with a disclaimer about his position on abortion.

I say all of this to make it clear that my support isn't that of a Ron Paul groupie, but of someone who has some very simple, common sense understandings of what Objectivists are doing to shoot themselves in the foot and what we need to do differently to have more success. From where I sit, it isn't me running around shouting, "Go Ron Paul," it is rather free market supporters running around shouting, "Down with Ron Paul" and me trying to say, "That isn't a good idea - why are we doing this?"

Post 22

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 10:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

One last thing... Talking about Erica's post and my reply, you said, "...[she] didn't say about Paul what your response implied had been said..."

I'm in the dark as to what you are referring to. Can you tell me what it is that my response implied that she said, but didn't? Thanks.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I don't know if I can explain it well with few words but here goes:

Stolyarov wanted to change English to be more logically lexicographical (or lexicographically logical, or whatever). Noble cause I'd say, but an idea before its time. Words like queue would be changed to que (because nothing is added but the ink required for the double ue -- it's illogical to needlessly duplicate). In the same vein, words beginning with ph, like philosophy, would be changed to filosophy. That's part one of the puzzle.

Regi Firehammer was considered to err on the rationalist side of Objectivism (which is actually the perfectly balanced rational-empiricism that philosophers of the Enlightenment had sought), as was Stolyarov. Regi argued against homosexuality, Stolyarov against abortion. After debating Sciabarra, Regi got heat from Linz Perigo, and Perigo called him Phirehammer to allude to his apparent rationalism. That's part two and three of the puzzle.

Putting it all together then, you get to allude that someone's a rationalist by changing the spelling of their name or something they said -- because that links you to Stolyarov, who was charged with rationalism, and so you are guilty by crude association. I, say, might call you Ted Kir, because the double e in Keer is redundant -- and, in doing so, I'm questioning whether you are a Platonic rationalist.

Do you get it, now?

:-)

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/13, 11:20am)


Post 24

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ron Paul did not endorse anyone. If you think he did, please cite the exact sentence. Here's the youtube url for his press conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1LMoWqXrE4

Post 25

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick, Thanks for submitting that link.

Everyone should watch that video - it doesn't matter what you think of Ron Paul, just see what is said about the election process in this country - listen to what is said about who it is that makes the decision as to who gets to appear on presidential debates.

Post 26

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 2:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"One last thing"



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some Ron Paul 10Sep08 Press Conference Highlights:

==============================
-60% of Americans are unhappy with their bipartisan choices

-If you take the total # of Americans, and then the %-age that register, and then the %-age that vote, and then the %-age that vote for a candidate you end up electing a president with 32% of the American people.

-Half the people (16%) who vote for the president are voting for the lesser of two evils.

-Therefore, 16% of the American people vote for the president because they like him.

-There was a debate going on between George Bush Sr. and Dukakis. And it was to be put on by the League of Women Voters. And there was a secret agreement between George Bush Sr. and Dukakis that they would dictate all the terms (who gets to be the moderator, who gets excluded from the debate). They (the League of Women Voters) said no way! This was their statement: The demands of the two campaigns would perpetuate a fraud on the American voter. Thats where we are.

-And then a few years later, an organization was formed and it was called the Commission on Presidential Debates. And since that time they dictate all the rules. And guess whos chairman. Its a former chairman of the Republican Party and former chairman of the Democrat Party, and they dictate all the rules! So, therefore, anybody who opposes the Status Quo arent permitted to be in the debates. And thats where we are today.

-The first challenge is: Oh, you want to hurt the Republican!

No. I dont want to hurt anybody. I want to help save the country! And therefore, if this works, if the American people would wake up I mean, there would be just as many votes that would leave Obama! I mean, hes not for change! That, to me, makes no sense! So if the Republican side would realize what Im trying to do they should be funding me! Look, Obama isnt for change! But the truth is he and McCain they all want to send troops to Georgia and more money to Georgia Both want (corporate) bailouts I think Ive made my point.
==============================

Ed

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 7:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Noble cause I'd say, but an idea before its time."

Noh, if it wR eh nohbl koz, its taym wuld biy naw, naht in dheh fyuhtxR. Beht inglix iz N etimohlahjikL langwij, naht eh fohnetik wehn. RehxN had eh speling riform. It dehzN't hav eh larj frenx and latin vohkabyuhleriy layk inglix, and its spikRz arN't edjuhkeytD in dhohz tehngz, so it dehzN't hav dheh seym mohtiveyxN az inglix to riteyn Dhi orijinL frenx or latin speling.

Post 29

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Would you please translate that? I don't speak "alien."

Ed
[oh dear ... at some point I may have to beg for apology for all this]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/14, 5:39am)


Post 30

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You should be able to figure it out as you would a cryptogram. The sounds correspond one on one. A hint, "RehxN" is Russian.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow...I'm almost sorry that started this thread. I mean, I wanted discussion about the (original) article I'd posted, but I guess I should have known that everyone, on both sides, would bring all of their old arguments into it.
 
 
My first post did question Ron Paul's actions (based on the CNN.com report), but it was hardly a "trashing" of the man.
 
I have never entered into the fray here concerning his presidential run previously.
(For the record: I did not, and do not, support him as President, because as Ted once said, I like him better in Congress, frankly. And I don't hate the Libertarians, either, though I personally disagree with their foreign policy platform.)

What if the wording of statement had been like this, "I encourage everyone to vote for a third party. I do not agree at all with politics of most of the third parties and with the politics of the Libertarian party only to a degree. But I clearly see a grave danger for our republic if we do not restrain the power now exercised by the two major parties and there is no other way."

Had that been his wording, would you have objected? (Steve Wolfer)

No, I would not have objected to that statement at all---provided he'd delivered it right after (or as a preface to) this one: "I have decided that the Republican Party is not where I personally belong, and I am going to rejoin the Libertarian Party, a third party whose ideals most closely align with mine." (Though I'm curious...what part of the Libertarian party platform does he not agree with?)


p.s., Ed's response to Kurt was reasoned and civil. It merited better treatment than Ted gave it. People here at ROR picked up the practice of calling Ron Paul a crackpot from those who want discredit his support of free enterprise. No surprise I guess when the next step is to call anyone that might support Ron Paul a crackpot, even if they are a member of ROR. Next came calling anyone that has a difference of opinion about a post about Ron Paul a crackpot. (Steve Wolfer)

As I said, I haven't really been involved in the other threads of Paul supporters vs. Paul detractors; so I'll have to assume that those other threads are where RoR members called each other crackpots. That is not what happened here.

(And actually the closest it came to that was Ed calling a particular argument that of a "crackpot". And he backed up (pretty well, too) why he felt that way. I had no problem with Ed's information, or even the opinion he gave...just the fact that he was addressing an argument Kurt didn't make...(at least not in this thread, anyway.) Perhaps Ed was addressing opinions given by Kurt somewhere else? I don't know. I believed that was what Ted was addressing as well, but I could be wrong. You'd have to ask him.


I think we should be totally intolerant towards those that do NOT share those basic principles (anarchists, for example) - but this doesn't mean warring with them - it means putting them out and closing the door. (Steve)

I basically agree with this statement...and I love the use of the word intolerant. In fact, that's the reason I couldn't understand why Paul would endorse everybody, including his idealogical enemies. Or why he remains a Republican when he clearly (and publicly) despises them, and the way they help maintain the two-party system. (Or have I misunderstood? Are the guidelines you posted only guidelines for a person's conduct on RoR, and not applicable to Ron Paul and his conduct?)

I watched the video (thanks, Rick.) So now we do know the purpose of his decision. (Remember I asked, is he trying to improve the Republican Party or help create a viable third party system?) It seems he is passionate about creating the third party system. As I said earlier, this is an honorable goal as well. Fine.

So when is his press conference announcing he is officially leaving the Republican Party?

Why should young people go out and vote for third parties when Paul himself won't join one and risk defeat running under their banner?

That was my original question.

I offered the opinion that the degree of a monopoly involved in our two party system justifies running for office on the Republican ticket as long as one is honest about their principles and beliefs with the voters.  (Steve)

Steve does not feel that it is hypocritical, and I do understand your position, Steve; I just don't agree with it. I still think Paul is having his cake and eating it, too.

And finally:

I always believed that Ron Paul's supporters (unlike Obama's worshippers) actually do support him because of where he stands (no one can accuse him of being just another pretty face with smooth words, lol.) The people who were excited about him understand and applaud what he's had to say about smaller government, civil liberties, and so on. If he'd come out and said he'd endorse the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr specifically, I would have had much less issue with him. At least it would be in keeping with his own ideals. Though, again---I'd still expect him to publicly rethink remaining a Republican, too.

P.S. I understood Ted's post #28. LOL.
And thanks, Joe, for the kind words.













 






Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Noh, if it wR eh nohbl koz, its taym wuld biy naw, naht in dheh fyuhtxR. Beht inglix iz N etimohlahjikL langwij, naht eh fohnetik wehn. RehxN had eh speling riform. It dehzN't hav eh larj frenx and latin vohkabyuhleriy layk inglix, and its spikRz arN't edjuhkeytD in dhohz tehngz, so it dehzN't hav dheh seym mohtiveyxN az inglix to riteyn Dhi orijinL frenx or latin speling.
(Who else? Ted Keer)

 
"No, if it were a noble cause, its time would be now, not in the future. But English is an etymological language, not a phonetic one. Russian had a spelling reform. It doesn't have a large French and Latin vocabulary like English, and its speakers aren't educated in those tongues, so it doesn't have the same motivation as English to write in the original French or Latin spelling."


Best I could do to translate. Close enough, Ted?




Post 33

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
100%. The problem is, how do you spell "the"? Sometimes it rhymes with tree, sometimes with duh. Thuh goes before consonants amnd thee is found before vowels. What we need is not spelling reform, but more people like Erica. I mean, bilingual education.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/16, 9:08am)


Post 34

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Erica,

I'm with you in this sense: We each wandered over, saw something, made a comment on it, and all of a sudden were surprised to find a war had erupted around us! I had no idea there was this gigantic underground molten force ready to explode over Ron Paul.

Anyway, we disagree on whether it is hypocritical or not for Ron Paul to run as a Republican, but I see that as a very minor thing.

You asked if his purpose was to improve the Republican party or to create a more viable third party system - I don't see those as separate. I suspect that Ron Paul thinks a stronger third party system would force the Republicans to make serious improvements. I think he sees the parties (major and minor) as just tools for trying to improve government - if they are used better than we are using them now.

I would be surprised if he doesn't endorse Barr at some point. That is the only candidate that matches his principles. If it had been me, I'd have made that statement just like he did, upholding the third party system as a whole, and inviting people to abandon the major parties - for a period of time - including the democrats leaving Obama. But I would have said, "I myself will, of course, be voting for Bob Barr, but each person should choose the third party that best matches their principles or vote for the independent candidates."


Post 35

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ron Paul is entrenched in the idea that his positions are the historical Republican positions. He thinks the Republican party has changed its position and needs to go back.

Post 36

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 4:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Ted is right in post 18.  I wasn't calling you a liar (nor suggesting you put up signs for him).  I apologize for the confusion.  I couldn't even tell what you meant when you thought I called you a liar...I didn't see how you got that.

Thanks Ted for trying to clarify.


Post 37

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I appreciate your apology and I'm glad to hear that it was a misunderstanding and not a case of name-calling.

Steve

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.