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

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
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
Atlas Count 66Atlas Count 66Atlas Count 66Atlas Count 66


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 9:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Elizabeth: “And please stop getting your panties in a bunch because you see that Linz wrote a negative comment.”

Hi Elizabeth,

I think you’re being rather harsh on Mr Stolyarov, as well as transgressing his boundaries of bodily etiquette. After all, as he has said in another thread: “The objective need to keep bodily properties private leads to another behavioral/stylistic necessity, to which all rational individuals will adhere, clothing…However, one should always seek maximum privacy in the coverage that his clothing can afford under the circumstances."

In referring to Mr S’s preference in undergarments you have – no doubt inadvertently – intruded on his bodily privacy. The red-blooded males on this site are intimately aware of the need to integrate mind/body in the area of clothing. As such, their public attire is in accord with their most private areas. To wit, under their outer clothing they wear jocks, not panties, and I am sure Mr Stolyarov shares this preference.

I have probably revealed too much information for your ears, but I am sure I can appeal to Mr S’s grant of license where such information is necessary for survival as a man, which of course includes one’s identity as a woman. The facts are these: Cameron Diaz wears panties, and real men hanker to get into those panties, although not in the way that some men would prefer.

B


Post 22

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 12:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some of Mr. Stolyarov's applications of filosofikal principles are painfully rationalistic.  I don't necessarily mind his stolid formality.  I much prefer it to the crude, crass, unrespectful, presumptuously familiar language most people use.  If he's a bit obsessive about it, that's probably an extension of his rationalism, his orientation abstractions rather than real things.  Almost everyone (myself included) who seriously pursues a filosofee becomes immersed in floating ideals and their extensions before coming back down to Earth weeks, months, or years later.

Dave wrote: "Your [Linz's] 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."

Linz's support of foreign policy statism in general and Bush's Iraq war in particular will haunt him for the rest of his life.  It will cast a shadow over everything he does.  People will remind him of it endlessly, relentlessly.  Even 20 years from now, he won't be able to post anything to SOLOHQ without being harassed about that stupid war.  A=A. Linz=Iraq war man.  His life is that -- wrecked and ruined -- forever and ever more!

-Logan

P.S. For all you rationalists, please get in touch with your sense of humor before you reply that you don't agree with that last paragraph.  Inevitably, for someone, I'll have to come out and state, "It wasn't meant to be taken seriously."  There.


Post 23

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan, I stand corrected! You are so right that it is more likely that those posting are not wearing panties. :) And it actually was meant for some of the other posters, although they were all guys as well so the same theory applies.

But otherwise, yes, I do skip much of what's on the forum by several posters. No need for me to write a thesis on it. I don't come to SOLO to read about why abortion is bad and male-female marriages should be supported and how God helps people through troubled times. I was actually just writing that I agreed with Linz and don't think there's anything wrong with filtering materials to the appropriate places! 

Have a good one!

-Elizabeth


Post 24

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Random question here -- I've noticed a couple people using the filosofikal spelling of the word. Pardon my ignorance, but is that an alternative spelling, the right spelling in a different country, or just being cute? Thanks!

Post 25

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Elizabeth,

Spelling it "filosofikal" is what I would call "turbo-snide".  

It apparently conveys the same richness of conflicted disgust that you or I would experience, if a lonely bowel movement decided to crawl out of the sewers and back up through our toilet bowls to find us in bed at night, and nuzzle up against our cheek for warmth and companionship.

Like "Mr. Hanky", but without the cute voice, singing, and little hat.


Post 26

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To no one in particular, or everyone in particular,

If any non-Objectivist, or even an Objectivist, not familiar with SOLO, should happen by this thread and read it from beginning to end, if by the time the reach the last post, they have not died of paroxysms of laughter, they will at least be convinced, someone left the lid of the nut jar.

What a delightful thread, especially after post #10. Thanks to all the contributors. This is filawsofee at its finest.

Regi


Post 27

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you had an F.D. in Filosofy, you'd understand why "ph" is for metafysical insignificants.  I don't and therefore don't understand.

-Logan


Post 28

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Elizabeth,

In all seriousness, Mr. Stoylarov (or Mr. Spock as I like to think of him sometimes) wrote an article about how it is more rational to spell "ph" as "f". I read it a long time ago and I found it . . . uh . . . fascinating. At least he is consistent, and it is catching on in a way (though probably not the way he intended).

As I did his article on why it is irrational for women (and of course men) to wear bikinis, short skirts, short shorts, or halter tops in public, or even in the comfort of your living home (except when turning on your heterosexual spouse after marriage and in private). I guess he's not a Britney Spears fan. His historical model in that regard is the Victorian Era, including Victorian Era swim attire. Call me a hedonist (my namesake Lord Byron did write "Don Juan"), but I much prefer a woman to wear swim attire and undergarments from Victoria's Secret over the Victorian Era.


Post 29

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron, Elizabeth,

This is the article:

An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics: Installment I

by G. Stolyarov II

As far as I know, there was never an "Instalment II."

Regi






 


Post 30

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.

Installment II shall come in time, Mr. Firehammer, as soon as Installment I has caught on. The light of truth, it has once been said by a man with whom I generally disagree greatly, blinds those who had been in the orthografical darkness for too long... they need to be exposed to it gradually in order to adapt and embrace the very principle of rational orthografy.

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 166Atlas Count 166Atlas Count 166Atlas Count 166


Post 31

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks all for the explanations! And thanks Byron for the final clarification, I really did need it! :) And also Regi for the source link. Now I feel like the person that just finally got a joke after having it explained in detail to her and finally gets to laugh!!

To further hijack this thread... the conservative bikini storyline reminded me (in a distant way) of a radio interview with a Muslim who is a professor here in the U.S. He lives here but still believes that men can't control themselves so women should be required to cover up head to toe. His daughter had been raped recently and he blamed her, because she should have known that in wearing shorts or whatever she had worn, men couldn't resist her. I wish someone would rape him! And how he explained the millions of men that get through their day without raping a girl is beyond me! I myself having been raised by European folks and having swam forever was always a big fan of the least amount of clothes necessary to cover up. :)

Good night all!

-Liz


Post 32

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Elizabeth: “I myself having been raised by European folks and having swam forever was always a big fan of the least amount of clothes to cover up.”

Elizabeth, please do not paint these sorts of enticing pictures. Some of the posters to this site are sworn to non-matrimonial celibacy, and you are sorely tempting them, not to mention the mainstream chaps who have integrated their undergarments with their outer attire.

In brief – shut my mouth! – let us have no more discussion of panties, jocks or their contents, or Cameron Diaz for that matter. Must dash. Cold shower etc…

Mr B


Post 33

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 5:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry Mr B. -- I'll try to remedy the situation. Picture 2 year olds running around naked and your grandma in a bathing suit! :) And that many European girls/women don't shave... If you're not used to all that, not covering up can be a shock in many ways! (And just to clarify, I do shave myself and in my "aging" years wear more covering clothing now (appropriate as defined by my taste, now that I think is the correct way for everyone to dress). But enough talk of clothing as you said!

-E


Post 34

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 6:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Personally I prefer the thought of Liz wearing the "least amount of clothes to cover up" ;-)

MH


Post 35

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Odd, given my pagan Greek ancestry and heritage, I don’t get all this fuss about clothing. In one of my history books on Alexander the Great, it explains how the Greeks found it amusing that the Jews, whom they just conquered, were so upset to be seen without their clothing. Maybe at the next SOLO conference we can rid ourselves of the last vestige of religion. :)

I don’t mind dissent from knowledgeable Objectivists like Stolyarov. And I argued vigorously against his abortion position when he first presented his thesis. He remained rational and civil. However, I like the active editing by Linz, Joe and the crew. It helps to focus this site, creates a distinctive flavor and keeps it from obsessing on single points like many sites today. I believed we considered Stolyarov’s thesis thoroughly (and I will likely go to his site from time to time to read more).

Now, skinny-dipping anyone?


Post 36

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 8:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good to see that there are Objectivist nudists on SOLO too. One good thing that ARI and TOC have in common is that both groups have held conferences close to nude beaches: Peikoff once led an excursion from UCSD down to Black's Beach; this year's TOC Summer Seminar is at UBC, just up the trail from Wreck Beach. Can SOLO be far behind?

Post 37

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Good to see ... Objectivist nudists ....
 
I don't know. I'd have to see 'em first.

Regi


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.