RoR: Forum

Michael,

Since you hang around with and champion the smear loving, I'm not surprised you don't really understand what a smear is and what an analogy is. You really just didn't get what I was saying in my post did you? Go look up "analogy" in the dictionary.

I don't need profound knowledge of you to make an analogy of your use of the word Objectivist and you anti-objectivist positions. Your words speak for themselves. I've read a lot of your posts. I see you stubbornly sticking to ideas that go against basic Objectivist principles. You insist that something is wrong and insist that you know Objectivism so well and you really are an Objectivist. You insist that others are wrong and defend your positions with out of context Rand quotes.

Let me sum it up with another analogy: Your philosophical positions are as consistent with Objectivism as a broken clock is consistent with the time of day. That is, they line up occasionally.

Ethan

P.S. No Michael, I'm not smearing you by suggesting you are a clock.

Edited for post coffee clarity.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 4/09, 5:57am)

Post 21

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 11:40am

Ethan,

Another manner of smearing is to make a negative assertion and not back it up.

Which ideas that "go against basic Objectivist principles" am I "stubbornly sticking to"? You seem to imply there are oodles of them.

(I do admit to sticking to unanswered questions on occasion, and I am a pain in the giggy for people who try to rewrite Rand - and it is funny, I who call myself an Objectivist but question things at times, have no issue with her words the way she wrote them, whereas others who call themselves Objectivists go about trying to explain what she "really meant"...)

If my quotes from Rand are out of context, could you provide one and please provide the correct context?

Any quote would have been nice. Inquiring minds seek enlightenment.

Michael

Post 22

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 1:29pm

Michael,

All I'm saying is the next time you want to debate an altruist or communist/socialist... you better hope they didn't read the altrusim against freedom thread they might be able to use your own words to argue their position better than you could argue one against them.

Just going from what you said you read atlas shrugged and accepted it wholeheartedly with little critical thought. Then about 30 years later you realized it might have questioned some fundamental values of yours and you're starting the questioning phase after several years of calling yourself an objectivist. All I'm saying is you should have already passed this phase before the first time you took the name.

If this is not the idea you wanted communicated, well you should've communicated it better.

Also getting pushed away by rudeness? If it means that much to you why would the attitudes of some, even most change what it meant to you and it's truth. If you're that effected by the attitudes and opinions of others you have bigger problems than people being rude to you.

Edited to add a tangental thought

---Landon

(Edited by Landon Erp on 4/09, 1:35pm)

Post 23

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 3:17pm

Landon,

I am going to criticize your message, but I do not mean this in a hostile manner. It is a critique of a way of thinking that I find in many people. (Please excuse the candy-stripes, but I need them for the examples.)

All I'm saying is the next time you want to debate an altruist or communist/socialist... you better hope they didn't read the altrusim against freedom thread they might be able to use your own words to argue their position better than you could argue one against them.

What altruism against freedom thread? The thread where I questioned emergency ethics? If so, then you opened up with a smear, not a fact. The idea is to insinuate that I was defending altruism on that thread. Switching terms and concepts like that, then falsely attributing them - is an old smear technique.

Anyway, your speculation is absolutely wrong. A communist/socialist would probably listen much more to what I have to say, knowing that I don't back down from rational examination of an issue, than listen to someone calling him evil, scumbag, etc., or genuflecting slogans from Rand's works at every utterance.

Even Rand listened to communists/socialists (and religious people) before commenting, and she did her best to make sure she understood correctly. Read some of her published letters for proof.

Just going from what you said you read atlas shrugged and accepted it wholeheartedly with little critical thought. Then about 30 years later you realized it might have questioned some fundamental values of yours and you're starting the questioning phase after several years of calling yourself an objectivist.

That's one hell of a lot of presumption (and a complete disdain for capital letters - Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism are the correct forms). What you have managed to do is crawl inside my brain, understand fully not only what I thought 30 years ago, but also now, and you even managed to insinuate that nothing else happened in between. Breathtaking.

If that is all you got from what I said, all I can do is suggest you read more carefully. Your understanding skills need work.

If this is not the idea you wanted communicated, well you should've communicated it better.

Communication is a two-way street. As you mentioned a specific thread, it might be a good idea to go back and see who was communicating and who was mudslinging, for example. If someone has closed his mind to understanding, he will not understand, regardless of what you say.

A good example is my recent discussion with Bill Dwyer. His mind was so made up against understanding me - he already knew so well what I was trying to say - that he made a very basic error and had to correct himself (about the need for a legal term - "minor"). He even owned up to presumption being the cause for his mistake. (And Bill is a very good man with a very good head. I am not talking against him, just like I am not talking against you. I am talking against how a poor attitude will lead to poor thinking, and this will lead to poor and incorrect judgments.)

Also getting pushed away by rudeness? If it means that much to you why would the attitudes of some, even most change what it meant to you and it's truth. If you're that effected by the attitudes and opinions of others you have bigger problems than people being rude to you.

This is a classic case of shifting a meaning in order to smear. I mentioned that other people are being so turned off by rudeness that they drift away from Objectivism, not that I (me, Michael, the one and only) am "so effected" yada yada yada. (I think you must have meant "affected," anyway.)

It so happens that online Objectivists are usually very rude to the people who drift away because they seek understanding - or show that they care - about one of the "prohibited" topics, and the newbies get their heads bit off. Either that or they watch another person get his/her head bit off and they don't want to be the target of that kind of spite. They have written to me about this because I stand up to the rude people. (Not many do.) Like I said, I have the e-mails. I try to convince them not to leave Objectivism - and some have stuck around. Others were too disgusted.

Now, here is the worst part of your post in terms of rhetoric. It is not what you said, it is what you didn't say. I asked you a question in my last post. I asked if you knew of anybody who had been intellectually damaged by my questioning.

You simple ignored it - the insinuation being that maybe it will go away because people will concentrate on the acrimony.

If you are interested in thinking, you will think hard about what I have written here. If you are on the crowd psychology trip of trying to smear a scapegoat (which is collectivism, actually), then I cannot reach you with words.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/10, 1:15pm)

Post 24

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 3:51pm

Michael,

You need to stop. Most of us aren't buying it.

Post 25

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 4:06pm

Please do not feed the three-ring circus of nonsense that is MSK.

Post 26

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 4:12pm

If my research into cognition brings out evidence that does not agree with Objectivist tenets, then I will, of course, follow the evidence. If studying the brain and how it works, with the technology that science and engieering affords me leads me to disagree with some tenets of Objectivism, so be it; the ultimate goal of finding order, of finding answers, of finding understanding, knowledge, etc. is so much more to me over the long run.

Even if my knowledge means nothing to some, it means a lot to me so much so that I am more than willing to share it with those who see that knowledge is power. Knowledge of one's brain, mind, and behavior has been illuminating. There is nothing better (to me) than to understand the brain and the mind; it is everything I am about. Neuroscience is one of a lot of the beauties of sciences; it will always be fascinating-- to me-- even in the face of a few Objectvist tenets. That is why I say that my field is not a "flight of fancy" (in a derogatory way). I see me being in neuroscience as the ultimate respect for the mind that I am interested in and capable of.

"Flight of fancy" of course, could be turned around to mean the path to "creativity", "innovation", those great a-ha! moments when a creator is struck by an epiphany; a delving into the subconscious. Thus, if a great path to knowledge (see above) does come against an Objectivist tenet, I take no shame nor guilt for thinking. :)

Post 27

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 4:22pm

I didn't answer the question directly and that is on me.

My main thrust was not that you were consciously arguing altruism, but that you could build a pretty good all around defense for altruism/collectivism from your arguments on that thread. Not so much that you could lead someone astray but that it read like you were arguing altruism/collectivism better than an altruist/collectivist. I am fairly certain this was not you intention but this is the result I experienced.

I accept the fact that other people are turned off and not you. This is a problem I have with anyone who gives this arguement. Just because people in a group give you grief doesn't mean you have to drop the ideas (or even continue associating with the group).

Not necessarily related to your specific critiques I probably do need to learn to be a little less collectivist when I see people who share the same chosen designation with me state ideas I find repugnant. I can only take responsibility for myself and I need to accept that I should keep my response to situations as such to stating a simple "I don't agree with you for reasons x, y, and z" and learn to move on. I have let myself become a little overly emotionally invested in disagreements as such and I should not have allowed this to happen.

As to any psychologizing of you I may have made it was the only conclusion I was able to make from your statements on the issue. It just jumped out at me and I couldn't ignore it. I've tried to be civil about it and by stating it publicly I have overstepped boundries. I should've kept a personal conclusion about another person exactly that... personal. There are probably dozens of facts I'm not privy to that may have effected things, and thus I shouldn't have made statements I cannot verify.

An issue I have is taking steps backwards. It took me a long time to accept the value of egoism/capitalism it was hard for me to do this initially. My emotional responses to this subject come from the fact that it seemed tobe implied (as you stated I had done and I think I have to agree) that the initial long nights of struggling with ideas I couldn't come to terms with never happend. That it didn't take a lot of time, thought and heartache to come to terms with something that completely opposed every idea I'd had until being exposed to something that not only proved that much of my ethical thinking up to that point had been wrong, but that I'd cost myself a great deal of pain through the years for no reason.

I personally took and still tend to take this as an insult and again THAT is on me. I need to learn how to step back a little when discussing issues as such or I'm never going to make progress.

In short I stand by the bulk of my reasoning on the issues involved but I don't stand by how I applied my reasoning on the issues in all cases. I often get criticised for being too emotionally invested in everything I come into contact with and I think this is a flaw, it sometimes keeps me from seeing things straight.

I'm not talking about repression so much as steping back for the sake of objectivity in more cases. Lately I've come away from internet discussions exhasusted and in some degree of despair. I don't think I (or anyone) should be that invested in these discussions.

---Landon

Post 28

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 5:31pm

Landon,

Fair enough. Sorry I was so harsh. I really do wish you well.

Here is the subject that's been on my mind in simpler language, just so you can perceive that it is not altruism.

You have a situation that Objectivists say is sacrificing the individual. The way most of the world sees this (and it took me a LONG LONG time to learn how to see this without resorting to Objectivist jargon to cover it up) is that Objectivists say it is NOT OK to sacrifice the individual but it IS OK to sacrifice a stray kid (although repugnant). That's an oversimplification, but that is how it is seen by the ones we seek to convince. Now here's the part that was really, really, really hard to see - the obvious question:

Why is it necessary to sacrifice anybody?

It's a damn good question.

(Try to think about that without the Objectivist jargon. You'll find that sacrifice isn't necessary at all. There's no good reason for it. The formulation of how to get there is tricky because of all the bombast, that's all.)

Edit - Er... and the heckling...

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/09, 5:54pm)

Post 29

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 5:47pm

Whatever oh great sage

LOLOLOLOL

The issue was dealt with and only you have twisted it around into some sort of major problem for you to solve. Publish it. Call yourself a guru for solving the unsovable. Whatever.

I'm done with this crap!

Ethan

Post 30

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 6:19pm

MSK,

Can you do everything? Or do you have limited resources, such as time, property, abilities, knowledge, intelligence, etc?

Lets say we all focused on making sure that all American babies were never hungry. Or lets say we all worked to make shoes. Or lets say we all worked to collect evidence in criminal cases. Or lets say we all worked to be the best life guard we could possibly be. Or lets say we all worked to make cotton. Or lets say we all just wrote and read books.

Then no American baby would go hungry up to a certain age! Or then everyone could have tons of shoes! Or then we would be able to be much more certain who was guilty and who was innocent. Or then very few people would die by drowning. Or then we could have tons of cotton cloths. Or then we could all have tons of books.

But nothing else would go well. Everybody would have tons of shoes, but not much of anything else, so the whole human race would fall apart and billions would die. Oh well. At least we'd have shoes!

Priorities.

Post 31

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:01pm

The way most of the world sees this (and it took me a LONG LONG time to learn how to see this without resorting to Objectivist jargon to cover it up)

And...

Try to think about that without the Objectivist jargon.

We can't have all those goofy principles and nasty jargon cluttering up Objectivism, right? What about the children???
Please, tell us what that other way of thinking is? Could it possibly be the method of "raw emotion as cognition??"
Isn't that jargon is in place to help us understand the importance of knowing, and identifying, what's real from what isn't?

Why is it necessary to sacrifice anybody?

Indeed! Why do those idiot parents abandon their kids anyway?? Bastards!

I think it's important to place responsibility (and blame!) where, and on whom it belongs. It's part of knowing what's real and what isn't.
I am now identifying that parents who abandon their children are not only responsible for the sacrifices they cause, but these toads are also responsible for giving someone as confused as MSK a crusade and pulpit to retard Objectivist principles into "jargon" which is to be avoided!
Double Damn them!

Post 32

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:14pm

Landon,

So long as we are talking, I wasn't going to answer all this, but the posts following mine are excellent examples of attempts to smear. I would like to point your attention to the reactions.

Ethan used another type of smear technique - projecting a possibility and belittling the person as if he and that possibility were the same. (Notice the lack of facts or principles that were being discussed.)
Dean speculated all over the place without getting anywhere near the issue. (Notice the lack of facts or principles that were being discussed.)
Teresa went ballistic and sarcastic and changed the subject. (Notice the lack of facts or principles that were being discussed.)

Notice also the general ill will.

I see nothing to be gained from this kind of rhetoric. I don't see Objectivism defended, understood or spread. It is interesting to think about why people do this.

Michael

Post 33

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:23pm

I don't see Objectivism defended, understood or spread. It is interesting to think about why people do this.

Especially when it's reduced to mere "jargon."

I'm not inclined to be polite to such advocates.

Post 34

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 8:03pm

I don't see Objectivism defended, understood or spread

Because you don't get it.

You have become nothing more than a troll.

Post 35

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 3:49am

Why is it necessary to sacrifice anybody?

You asked this question. I answered it. No where near the issue? I directly answered your question.

Post 36

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 4:54am

Ethan,

You used to be better than that. If you want to smear somebody, is sticking your tongue out all you've got left?

Where is the dude who used to tie people in knots at The Autonomist? Rhetoric-wise, you are becoming inept.

Come on, man! If you want to keep playing the smear game, at least do something decent. I know you've got it in you.

Michael

Post 37

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 8:35am

Landon:

In cases where I can tell my understanding is lacking I just sit back and let the info soak in when I listen to people who do understand the issue better.

I think that's also good advice for people without any scientific background who think that they know what's wrong with modern science.

Post 38

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 10:49am

Landon,

I agree entirely with your point here:

I'm not talking about repression so much as steping back for the sake of objectivity in more cases. Lately I've come away from internet discussions exhasusted and in some degree of despair. I don't think I (or anyone) should be that invested in these discussions.

That's why I said I would limit my involvement on SOLOPassion to a relatively brief period of time (assuming I didn't get thrown off it first).

Making quality contributions to message board discussions is hard work. Making them in the face of screeding and ad hominems and unresponsive comments is harder work. Too much of this kind of work, and you no longer have a balanced, flourishing life. At least, that's what I've learned.

Robert Campbell

Post 39

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 12:55pm