Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dianahsieh

New Blog on Activism for Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi Kendall,

Yes, my statement was way overbroad, and you make several good points. Thank you.

However, the context here is specifically that of publicly announcing a private group.

In making public announcements, potential public perceptions and misperceptions can be important. Here, the privacy was justified as being based on concern for creating fodder for others to criticize Objectivists and Objectivism. Shouldn’t we also be concerned with the potential fodder that could be used to create negative public perception based on how the privacy of the group is publicly justified?

Also, when anyone is invited to join a private group and keep secrets, one should ask several basic questions, not blindly sign up. I think the onus is on one who invites others to sign up for his private group to explain why others should be interested in doing so, including why it should be private.

I questioned the public reasons given for the privacy. Atlas had no obligation to clarify or change his public reasons, but he saw fit to do so. I think such clarifications and changes are helpful.

Edited by Old Toad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Kendall,

Yes, my statement was way overbroad, and you make several good points. Thank you.

However, the context here is specifically that of publicly announcing a private group.

No problem, and you're welcome. If we have really narrowed the issue down to the announcement of the group, rather than it's justification for existence, then that's a much narrower issue. I didn't understand that's where we were at. Thanks for the clarification.

I still have some objections to the stance. And I want to differentiate between 2 audiences: 1. those who are hostile to the philosophy or those who would be sway by arbitrary arguments, and 2. those who are sympathetic and reasonable.

In making public announcements, potential public perceptions and misperceptions can be important. Here, the privacy was justified as being based on concern for creating fodder for others to criticize Objectivists and Objectivism. Shouldn’t we also be concerned with the potential fodder that could be used to create negative public perception based on how the privacy of the group is publicly justified?

No. THis is an example of #1. This particular type of fodder is innocuous. Those who want to cast aspersions on the philosophy because of things like this are trying to appeal to the arbitrary, and those with whom they have sway respond to the arbitrary. Of all the fodder available, this is the weakest sort. Much better to have one item that makes for arbitrary assertions, than to have a multitude of instances of Objectivists own words, used against them out of context. Weighed relative to each other, this is a minor concern. Now certainly one should consider what one says publicly about such a group, but of all the things to be concerned about, this one doesn't rank very high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kendall and Atlas,

Obviously I think these kinds of issues are worthy of discussion. I also think we have made some progress in understanding each other’s views even though we still have some remaining disagreement. I should not, however, push my questions and suggestions on others who think they are unimportant or a waste of time.

Again, thank you both for the considerations you gave me.

Edited by Old Toad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'd like to apologise my previous comments. I think they were out of line. I've been pretty busy as of late and haven't had the chance to post much, so I guess I posted without thinking really.

I hope you forgive me, and I'd be delighted to read through your blog if you email the password (cowboybebop -SPLAT- ntlworld.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I co-run ARCHN....

Okay...... there have been a few posts by ARCHN members here on this forum by now..

WHY?!?

Spammers are outright rejected. Trolls are quickly given the boot.

Why on Earth are ARCHN members allowed to post here (and as if they have even _remotely_ near the same credibility as a troll?????....)

Did OO.net security break?!?!

:pimp:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...