| | Greetings.
I certainly have no objections to using the Dissent forum (I have used it already!) and will do so if I wish to bring up further discourse on abortion. There is, however, a logical inconsistency in Mr. Perigo's and others' reasoning in this particular situation. The quote I had posted was a QUOTE, and I had intended to provide no commentary on it. If I wished to write a treatise or a column on that quote, I would have posted it under "Dissent." But A=A and Quote=Quote. Quotes belong in the Quotes gallery. I thought that some of the people on this forum would have the good humor and sofistication to understand a humorous comment even when it diverged from their explicit views. Reagan's remark was just a mildly witty chastisement of abortion opponents, not the "sacrilege" of mocking the good for being the good, but a skillful use of irony and conciseness. Even if one disagrees with the CONTENT of the quote, one can certainly appreciate the form, as it was one of the hallmarks of Reagan as The Great Communicator. The question Objectivists should be asking themselves is, "How can I use rhetorical skills and devices to advance my principles in the general culture? What can I learn from Ronald Reagan's immense success in doing so?"
The way SOLO can swiftly exonerate itself from the sin of associating with such heretical ideas as mine is to post a legal disclaimer on the front page, stating "The views of individual posters, authors, or contributors to galleries do not necessarily reflect the views of SOLO as an organization." I had already seen disclaimers of this sort on SOLO some time ago; if they are renewed, the problem will be solved! There will be no need to go after each individual case of dissent, unless one wishes to argue against its CONTENT, and members wil have the flexibility of inserting (GASP!) a quote into the Quotes gallery if they see it as the proper format of presenting the content.
Mr. Perigo: 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.
Mr. Stolyarov: Feel free to submit one! I have published whole treatises by pro-abortion Objectivists on my site, since I have the genuine intention of exposing my readers to both sides of the issue. I do not agree with the substance of those treatises, nor have they provided new arguments, but I have given their authors their say.
Because of techonological reasons, I must regulate the setup of my site more stringently than SOLO does; everything that goes in must pass my moderation, but I allow it do so as long as it is not obscene or irrelevant.
Here is an example (unrelated to the abortion issue per se) of how I react to dissenters, without criticism or condemnation of their actions:
Does the World Need Nuclear Weapons?: April 28, 2004: With the Cold War over, the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction may no longer be effective, while the threat emanating from the nuclear arsenals of many countries remains substantial. Ivan A. Shatkin examines the dangerous effects of nuclear arms possession to human life and international affairs today. While TRA does not necessarily embrace Mr. Shatkin's reliance on international consensus at the expense of American unilateralism, it concurs with him that this issue is one worthy of exploration and consideration. Civil, clear, and concise. And it allows me to benefit as greatly as I can not only from Shatkin as a contributor, but from the particular controversial piece that he had contributed.
Mr. Perigo: A prize example is the lengthy essay on marriage that Mr. Stolyarov has entered on the "Dissent" board here.
Mr. Stolyarov: Please, for the sake of logic, argue against my essay using your full capacity and full set of grievances on the Dissent board. I KNOW that the example of its content that you had posted is NOT the greatest of your objections, but it should not dissuade SOLOists from reading my work and forming their own opinion. You have not yet, however, presented any specific COUNTERPOINTS as to WHY you do not think my essay to be consistent with Objectivism, WHY I am a rationalist, WHY I am a "frigid formalist" or any justification for any other names you had called me. I am not saying you do not have a case; I do not know WHAT your case is! I am not calling you a malicious liar; I do not know WHY you are saying what you state in the first place! You give only your conclusions, and not the reasoning that led up to them.
That you appreciate my other contributions and my general demeanor on this site is duly noted. But having called me "pseudo-Objectivist" DESPITE those contributions, simply because I do not perfectly replicate YOUR views, was still unjustified. It amounts to an argument from authority rather than allowing individuals the leeway of developing their own views from the same basic premises, without falsely accusing them of betraying those premises.
I thank Mr. Voigt and Mr. Bisno for stating their views honestly and arguing as they had.
As for Mr. Reed, he has not even been able to spell my NAME correctly! How in the world can he be expected to accurately comment on my IDEAS and ACTIONS??
And I do not recall ever engaging Ms. Kanabe in discourse of any sort. Rather than attempting to use argumentation to refute what I present, she seems content to say merely, "No. He's just wrong. He's not Objectivist. I will just ignore him in hopes that he will go away." Yet not only that, but she would like to MAKE me go away if she ever got that privilege. I have received better treatment from Hobbesian collectivists. In recent days, I was sent a letter by a captain in the US military who had argued against me and in favor of the draft; he had stated that, though he disagreed with me vehemently, he found my knowledge and style of argumentation superb, and one of the reasons why he is defending this country in the first place. If my ideological adversary can exercise greater respect for me than someone whose views are far, far closer to mine than his, what have that latter person, and the spirit of Objectivism, come to?
I am G. Stolyarov II
|
|