RoR: Forum

I've also noticed that everyone who is against abortion has already been born.

Post 1

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 4:17pm

Given Ayn Rand's unyielding defense of a woman's right to choose abortion, I wonder why the poster saw fit to share this particular quote. Ayn Rand actually disliked President Reagan because of his opposition to abortion and his strong sympathies for the Religious Right. I often wonder if she would have softened her critiques had she lived long enough to see the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the end of 90% income tax brackets -- major events all attributed to Reagan's legacy.

Post 2

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 6:32pm

Mr. Setzer,

Please see "An Objectivist Condemnation of Abortion:"

http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/An_Objectivist_Condemnation_of_Abortion.shtml

Perhaps Ayn Rand's grievances against Reagan in even this category were unjustified.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 3

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:16am

The posting of this quotation by Mr. Stolyarov is an abuse of SOLO's tolerance & hospitality. Reagan was wrong about abortion, as he was wrong to cultivate the religious Right. In the tributes to him that have been posted here, including my own, it has been a given that Reagan was a hero *in toto* - not in every respect. These tributes are not a license for rationalistic pseudo-Objectivist conservatives like Mr. Stolyarov to promote their anti-freedom message on this site. Mr. Stolyarov knows he won't be censored here - but he should have more taste & decency than to take such shoddy advantage of that fact. President Ronald "I'm paying for this microphone" Reagan would not have behaved in this manner, & neither should Mr. Stolyarov.

Linz

Post 4

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 11:29am

I see little or no logic in opposing abortion... The problem I see is that I think it's probably a debate which is a sad waste of precious time and energy... because I don't think the right people are -- or would be having -- the abortions anyways; it's pretty much the already conscientious who are.

Because I think that this topic touches upon the touchy issue of "overpopulation", I'm going to present a fork in the discussional road here, and bring up that it seems apparent to me that far too much of the human race is becoming ever more vicious and demented, and I have little doubt that much of this is due to increasing numbers of that portion of the population which is impulsive, unbalanced, and psychologically stunted.

I am not talking about overpopulation in the usual sense of the word, as "progressives" do, which does not attempt to look at precisely who is overpopulating...

Notice also that I'm not talking about overpopulation by the feeble here... I really don't see them as the problem, although I have little doubt that the mentally lazy and sadistic would have -- and have had in the past -- a field day with scapegoating and persecuting them for their pathetic and cowardly amusement; I find them to be very often well-behaved and non-malignant.

No, the people that I'm talking about are the "he said/she said" crowd... the "pitchforks and torches" set... the "throng"... the angry mob... the conformists... the followers of religion. I submit that these are the people really ruining everything.

These truly perverse and demented people do not believe in abortion, because they thrive on plurality and drama and cruel hierarchism, and on and on. And of course, once again I blame religion for all of this, because as I've said before, religion is really sado-masochism, made cultural; it establishes an all-pervasive, barely sub-sexual, lifestyle of the disavowed lust for receiving and inflicting impossible-to-resolve torments.

I strongly suspect that this is the real reason why religion in this country opposes abortion: because religious leaders, in their addiction to this sickening way of life, would not know how to operate in a world without constant strife, and they fear that abortion will cut into that.

But if this is the case -- which I really think it is -- they're getting worked up into a lather for nothing, really... they need not fear. They can sleep cozily self-assured at night, knowing that they have firmly and probably irreversibly established their lunatic choke-hold on humanity. The sheer numbers of the psychotic and deranged, which they are largely responsible for having cultivated, are far too large for much to be done about now.

As the behavioral scientist John Calhoun discovered in his controlled studies of animal overpopulation, overpopulating regional species that continue to have adequate food supplies, will become more and ever-more psychotically vicious, until an equilibrium point of murder and insanity is established, that maintains a burstingly high, but stable, population at a certain approximate number. And that's what I really think we're establishing on this planet Earth.

So, continue your debates all you like... Although "I feel your pain", I don't think that abortion, which is a choice to likely to be made only by the rational and ethical, is a real solution, because those aren't the people causing the problem in the first place. In the end, my sad conviction is that only an ever-widening variety of madness and murder at a ever-widening rate and scale will ever put a dent in the ever-expanding masses of the deranged, who I think are really causing the problems anyway.

I honestly think that the best that we, the rational, can do, is to construct our Galt's Gulches where we may and withdraw far from the lunacy, never letting the malignant bastards through our gates.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/12, 11:44am)

Post 5

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 12:31pm

Lindsay

Mr. Stolyarov's message is not anti-freedom, and I don't see how HE has abused YOUR tolerance and hospitality. I find his argumentation to be a model to all aspiring rational debaters. I don't agree in substance with his views on abortion and sex, but I always know his debate will be civil, and intelligent.

You, on the other hand, rarely engage in such admirable tactics. Your condemnation of those who have different opinions than yours is pretty consistent and stinks of intellectual sloth (ad hominem attacks free you from the burden of defending your position). Additionally, your support of the arbitrary Iraq invasion coupled with your blind hatred of many modern art forms (jazz, rock & roll, abstract art of any kind etc.) make you as much of a "rationalistic pseudo-objectivist conservative" as anyone else around here.

I try to avoid being negative, and I don't feel good about it. I just couldn't stand back and watch you point the finger at Mr. Stolyarov like that. BTW, I know you're the impetus behind this wonderful community, and I appreciate it beyond words.

Dave

Post 6

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 2:28pm

Linz is much more polite than could be objectively justified - and much more polite than I could have managed in his place. Stoliarov links to his trivially debunked argument, which is based on a theistic (rather than natural) conception of "human nature." The specific, objectively actual nature of Man qua Man is to live according to the judgement of one's own mind. That includes changing inconvenient "natural" facts like starvation, disease, or unwanted/defective pregnancy. As I wrote in response when it was first posted, Stolyarov's use of a theistic conception of human nature "Inserts God into the argument through the back orifice." Linz's wonderful gift of a forum for objectivists is made much less useful when one needs to re-debunk already trashed pseudo-arguments like this one. Linz has every reason to be angry, and so does every Randian in this forum.

Post 7

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:36pm

Adam

Stolyarov's view on abortion is of course something I take issue with, but my post was more about the "pot calling the kettle black" in terms of Lindsay's "rationalistic pseudo-objectivist conservative" comment. In hindsight, my post was probably counterproductive.

Dave

Post 8

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 6:35pm

Mr. Perigo, I hope you will have the decency to offer up an apology, as I have when I had made a comment I later realized to be improper about one of your writings.

You may say Reagan is not a hero in toto, but your post makes it seem as if I am a villain in toto, simply because I disagree with your stance on abortion. And is this periferal difference a justification for calling me a "pseudo-Objectivist?" Have my multitudes of other articles and contributions not proven beyond reasonable doubt that I am not "anti-freedom?"

This is precisely the reason why Objectivists are unable to emege into a culturally potent force; they seem far more willing to crush each other over minutiae rather than to acknowledge their differences, discuss them, consider them, and cooperate despite them in the larger cultural battle.

This is precisely the treatment that frustrated our old friend, Mr. Emrich, whose expression of that frustration became rather distasteful. Mine will not be. I know that I am deserving of an apology, of due respect and recognition for my contributions to this site, and of treatment as an intellectual equal, not a target of useless scorn and name-calling. I will raise no further issue of this. I will merely wait patiently to receive what is rightfully mine.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 9

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 8:01pm

Is G. Stolyarov basically calling out Rand for her mother's describing motherhood as "a hateful duty"? Is he noticing some anti-child sentiment in Rand's writings, or in Objectivism?

I don't think I've detected an "anti-child" sentiment in her writings or in Objectivism, but I have noticed, on one hand, a noticeable absence of children in Rand's fiction, while on the other hand, she does comment on the importance of raising and educating them properly in such pieces as "The Comprachicos"...

I'm not sure I would call her "anti-child", but I would say that she places a great emphasis on people either raising and educating their children properly, or not doing it at all, and causing the children to suffer. She was very ardent about that.

Now, that I will wholeheartedly cheer for...

I don't think she is pro-abortion or, even worse, "pro-child-death", so much as she is "pro-only-have-the-child-if-you're-in-a-position-to-raise-it-properly".

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/12, 8:15pm)

Post 10

Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 8:42pm

Let's just say it's a good thing no one has thrown about the word "bollocks".

Oops. It slipped out.

Why am I drinking at home? This is no good. I need to go now. I hope the HQ is littered with bodies by Monday. Bye now.

Post 11

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 3:07am

I agree with Orion's post.

Personally I think abortion should ideally be legal but rare - i.e. freely available but little demand, due to there being few unintentional pregnancies and so on. The solution as I see it is to encourage responsible attitudes toward sexuality, by which I mean not some reactionary abstinence-till-marriage stance, but encouraging the use of contraception, refraining from drunken sex, some degree of discrimination in the choice of partner etc. That is something I hope both the "pro-choicers" and "pro-lifers" here could agree on.

(I place the pro-life/pro-choice labels in inverted commas as many Objectivists would argue that abortion rights are pro-life).

MH

Post 12

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:18am

Hello gents. I don't really want to try to bridge the differences in this forum by making a Rodney King-like call: "Can't we all just get along." But the truth is: Lindsay is a friend. He is one of the most passionate defenders of liberty I've ever encountered. I've disagreed with him on a number of very contentious issues, from feminism and Eminem to the Iraq war. I've even defended myself from charges of being a "Saddamite." But I really must raise my voice in reply to Dave Voigt; Linz most definitely is not a "blind" hater of jazz and rock & roll; to my vivid recollection, he is a fan of classic jazz artists, such as Louis Armstrong, and many a rock & roller---from Elvis Presley on up. Heck: I even saw him utter some lyrics from the Spice Girls and swivel his hips on the Coney Island boardwalk to the sounds of the Bee Gees. Don't let him kid you: Underneath that stern exterior is a Disco Diva waiting to happen!

Seriously, though, no "rationalistic pseudo-objectivist conservative" would have risen to publish my five-part series on the reactionary tendencies in the Objectivist movement on the issue of homosexuality or the monograph that emerged from it. No rationalist would have written a scathing indictment of the unfortunate practice of rationalism in romantic relationships. And no rationalist would have the audacity to create a forum like this, where rationalists, nonrationalists, irrationalists, and even diabolical dialecticians might meet to thrash about in the issues of the day.

So, I will agree with you, Dave, on one thing above all else: Linz is the "the impetus behind this wonderful community," and I think we should all "appreciate it beyond words."

Post 13

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:22am

Matthew,

The only caveat that I see with regard to only having children when you know you can raise them properly, is with regard to foreseeable financial stability...

I think that a person cannot backslide on the amount of acquired knowledge they can make available for their children; however, it is possible that, despite your best preparations, some unforeseen economic setback or calamity could befall a couple while their child is in utero, or after birth, that places a strain on the resources they have available for their child.

In these cases, it's not necessarily a lack of planning for the child that is the problem, but fluxes -- perhaps major fluxes -- in their industry that are to blame and I, for one, would be understanding and supportive of that.

I think that, too often, many people do not understand that bad things sometimes simply happen in life, due to circumstances not under our immediate control, and that there are limits on how much we can blame the individual for not being in control.

Yet again, an individual in such a situation who does not take every available or reasonable action to remedy the situation is at fault, I would say.

Post 14

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 7:57pm

SoloHQ's owner, publisher and editor should be able to change the category of items posted into the wrong category. Then Stolyarov's postings would be available under the category of DISSENT from Objectivism, where they belong. Linz's gentle adminitions, in place of simply assigning mis-posted items to their proper categories, is something I personally would have no taste for - but to think that Linz was criticized, not for bending over backward but for stating his own dissent from Stolayarov's abuse of Linz's forum, boggles the mind.

I'm volunteering, if needed, to write the code to re-categorize misposted items.

Post 15

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 8:55pm

With regard to this idea of dissent, I'm not sure how it would be easily managed, even considering that you now have a "dissent" forum.

What I mean by that is this: In this course of normal discussion of a topic that someone has introduced, you've got to have -- and I think you're going to have -- point and counterpoint in a line-item fashion, with regard to someone's previous posts.

If someone has to put any and all of their counterpoints to another person's statemenet in an entirely separate forum category, then who would even think to look elsewhere? Wouldn't it disturb the logical flow of the discussion?

On the other hand, if someone wants to introduce an entirely different topic string that deviates from orthodox Objectivism, then yes, I would say that that definitely belongs in the "dissent" forum. But sometimes I think it's hard to know when you've crossed that line.

Maybe it's just going to take time for people to smoothly integrate the dissent forum into where and how they post comments. I think that the objection to G. Stolyarov's post was that it really was such an entirely self-contained commentary and bold statement, that it belonged as its own topic string in the dissent forum.

I don't think he meant anything obnoxious by posting it where he did... I just think that perhaps he didn't quite know or where to properly post it, given that the dissent forum is new. Should he have posted it in dissent, and then posted something in this topic string saying, "please see my article in 'dissent'"?

Post 16

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 2:38am

The objection to Mr. Stolyarov's post was that it was a quote, posted in bad faith. Visitors to the site are entitled to think that the quotes reflect SOLO's position. Mr. Stolyarov took advantage of the fact that SOLO was paying homage to Ronald Reagan to smuggle in an anti-abortion quote from Reagan, knowing full well that he would be the only SOLOist who agreed with Reagan on that matter. I judge Gennady to be, generally, a scrupulously honest man from what I've observed, but he let himself & his hosts down badly on this occasion. I think he would have a better appreciation of my position if I were to go to *his* site & post a pro-right-to-abort quote on the home page.

Over & above that, naturally I hold his position on abortion to be anti-freedom, & he often, in my view, succumbs to the deadly trap into which so many Objectviists fall - rationalism - when presenting views that are simply religious conservativism disguised in Objectivist drag (hence my use of the term "pseudo-Objectivist"). A prize example is the lengthy essay on marriage that Mr. Stolyarov has entered on the "Dissent" board here. Some of it sends shivers down my spine (for instance, the defining of appropriate degrees of affection that a father & mother respectively should allocate their offspring ... kissing's OK from Mum, but Dad should confine himself to a pat on the back. Can't have Dad being overly affectionate, now! Then again, it wasn't that long ago that Gennady was condemning mini-skirts!). If this kind of frigid formalism is Objectivism then an Objectivist I ain't!

I hate to seem to be beating up like this on one of SOLO's most energetic & committed contributors, but I cannot allow the fiction to develop that postings such as the anti-abortion quote or the marriage article represent SOLO. The superb anti-draft letter, by contrast, *did*, as does an anti-draft poem that he has in the Article Queue. All I ask of Gennady is that he posts his contributions in the appropriate places, & doesn't pull stunts like the anti-abortion quote. He is at perfect liberty to argue the anti-abortion case on the Dissent board, but should not tout it in an area reserved for quotations that, as he knows full well, would be taken to represent the typical opinion of SOLOists.

I don't think I was wrong to react as I did & most certainly won't be apologising.

Linz

PS - Thanks to those who've expressed appreciation for the site. Just so we're clear, credit for the site belongs to its owners, Joe & Jeff. I overlaid it with the SOLO vision, but a better execution of that vision I couldn't ask for.

Post 17

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 3:52am

it certainly seems out of line for stolyarov to have posted the the quote to the main page, thus possibly giving persons the wrong idea about solohq, but linz's words to him seem to be excessively harsh. g stolyarov is no enemy of freedom or reason as such, and has consistently shown both. in this case he is wrong and stepped out of line, but overall he is clearly a value to this thread and deserves only to be castigated for the particular thing he did wrong, not for disagreements of opinion or strange ideas.

Post 18

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:10am

I simply don't believe the above post. As Adam said, this stuff boggles the mind.

Linz

Post 19

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 5:16am