edward j williamson Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Mr. Speicher, Ironic that this should come from one who bills himself as a deep thinker. Your arguments are nothing more than a house of cards built on sand. What, did you get your ideas for this retort from Peter Schwartz as you and Bowzer so aptly like to quote. Hell, the way you two seem to revere the likes of Schwartz, who is the master of the non sequitur argument, I'd swear that you think that he walks on water. Go ahead, refer them to that thread, it is full of holes and baseless arguments, none of which give any evidence as to the varacity of any claims. Can't have anyone thinking for themselves, why not refer them to what was already written, that way they can demonstrate the same intellectual laziness as Peter Schwartz and all those who endlessly quote him. Besides this thread, where else am I promoting my views, as you put it? Now, I have posted a couple of my published articles in the Essay Forum, but it is not intended to promote libertarianism. I was more interested in feedback, to see where people such as yourselves stand on certain issues. You mean to tell me you have no problems with the so-called Faith-Based Initiative as what I discuss in one of my articles, the one titled, "Uncle Sam's Charity"? If you think it is tripe, well, that is one man's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.West Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 So you got what you wanted now? Your very first post was a polite kick in the teeth to Objectivists, because you proposed something you knew very well that Objectivists disagreed with. Then you made no substantive case for your assertion, claimed you were familiar with all the arguments against it, etc. Now your rants show what you thought about Objectivists all along, when we reject your Libertarian Party propaganda. The same sort of anger I'd expect a Libertarian Party NAMBLA member to feel when a disgusted young boy scout throws his gift box of chocolates back in his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 So you got what you wanted now? Your very first post was a polite kick in the teeth to Objectivists, because you proposed something you knew very well that Objectivists disagreed with. Then you made no substantive case for your assertion, claimed you were familiar with all the arguments against it, etc. Now your rants show what you thought about Objectivists all along, when we reject you Libertarian Party propaganda. The same sort of anger I'd expect a Libertarian Party NAMBLA member to feel when a disgusted young boy scout throws his gift box of chocolates back in his face. You hit the proverbial nail on the head with your succinct summation, Andrew. I wish I had thought of your caustic closing line, which is more likely to penetrate his sort of mind than do abstract ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 So you got what you wanted now? Your very first post was a polite kick in the teeth to Objectivists, because you proposed something you knew very well that Objectivists disagreed with. Then you made no substantive case for your assertion, claimed you were familiar with all the arguments against it, etc. Now your rants show what you thought about Objectivists all along, when we reject you Libertarian Party propaganda. The same sort of anger I'd expect a Libertarian Party NAMBLA member to feel when a disgusted young boy scout throws his gift box of chocolates back in his face. Really? My first post was angry? I could have sworn that I was very gracious, as I have been in most of my posts. Yours, as a matter of fact, was the first one of the first demonstrating any hostility. I have praised the efforts of Objectivists as to the work they do on our University campuses, and have given encouragement to keep up the good work. How is that hostile? Tell me that! My intent was never, ever to stir the pot, or to kick Objectivists in the teeth, as you put it. I have a great deal of respect for Objectivists, actually. No, I am disappointed in the hostility that I have encountered, I am not angry at all towards Objectivism. I may be angry at some of the people here, but that is as far as it goes. Yes, I accept part of the blame for that as well. As far as your NAMBLA insinuations, that is completely out of line, and if you were a member of the political/opinion board where I am an administrator you'd be summarily banned for it. Yeah, I know, not very libertarian, but it is a private board, so it would be my right. Listen, like I said, I am an administrator of a political/opinion/news message board. I am seeing this thread devolve into something other than what this board is intended for. You all have a good thing going here, and alot of good topics and material. It is not fair to the owners and administrators of this board for this nonsense to continue. It is best just to let this thread die out. I will continue to read, but for now I will limit my posting. I have no desire to be the crux or instigator of trouble, nor is that my intent. So, it is best to let cooler heads prevail and just let this thread end right here. I offer my sincere apologies for what has transpired here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 As far as your NAMBLA insinuations, that is completely out of line, and if you were a member of the political/opinion board where I am an administrator you'd be summarily banned for it. Yeah, I know, not very libertarian, but it is a private board, so it would be my right. *** ATTENTION *** Board owner GreedyCapitalist *** See, David. He would not put up with there, what he gets away with here. The promotion of libertarianism is more offensive to real Objectivists than NAMBLA is to real Libertarians, so why don't you establish a forum policy restricting the promotion of libertarian views here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 *** ATTENTION ***Â Board owner GreedyCapitalist *** See, David. He would not put up with there, what he gets away with here. The promotion of libertarianism is more offensive to real Objectivists than NAMBLA is to real Libertarians, so why don't you establish a forum policy restricting the promotion of libertarian views here? I'll go ahead and repost this portion, which I just edited to my previous post: Listen, like I said, I am an administrator of a political/opinion/news message board. I am seeing this thread devolve into something other than what this board is intended for. You all have a good thing going here, and alot of good topics and material. It is not fair to the owners and administrators of this board for this nonsense to continue. It is best just to let this thread die out. I will continue to read, but for now I will limit my posting. I have no desire to be the crux or instigator of trouble, nor is that my intent. So, it is best to let cooler heads prevail and just let this thread end right here. I offer my sincere apologies for what has transpired here. My intention was never to step on toes or to cause trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Bowzer, Just so that you know, I have studied each facet of Objectivism, I am familiar with the basic tenants of Objectivism. I have read Ayn Rand’s major works, and Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were two of my favorite books. I also value reason and logic above emotionalism, just like you do. You seem to confuse rational thought with the concept of Rationalism. You would be the type that spends the better part of his life trying to ‘prove’ that reality is real. If you think Objectivists spend their life trying to prove the reality of reality, then you definitely have a grave misundersting or ignorance of Objectivism, for Objectivism takes reality as an axiom, an absolute--not to to questioned. Theory in its purity takes precedence over actual observable proof (evidence). I have news for you and all who dwell within your insular little cocoon, the concepts of individual rights, self-ownership (libertarian philosophy) and freedom pre-date Objectivism. Many of the arguments that I have encountered here against libertarianism center around the perception that the concepts of rights are deduced from philosophy, forgetting that natural rights and natural laws are as immutable as are the laws of gravity. It is my experience that many Objectivists equate reason, morality, and rights with sententious phrases, as if that were to pass as truth and wisdom, especially the Peikoff acolytes. The fact that such "libertarian" concepts pre-date Objectivism is beside the point, which is that they have NO sound philosophical basis/framework in Liberterianism and can therefore not only NOT be pomoted and protected by Libertarianism, but may in fact be ENDANGERED by it. Natural rights may be as immutable as the law of gravity, but they are nonetheless complex, derivative concepts that exist within a propery hierarchy and context of knowledge, and that when divorced from that hierarchy and context (or worse positioned into the wrong hierarchy and context), they become at best ingraspable, meaningless, floating abstractions and at worse, perverted into meaning their exact opposite. Libertarianism has the potential to destroy the cause of liberty by destroying or perverting its meaning. "You like to pass off quotes from Peter Schwartz and Dr. Peikoff as absolute truths, it appears to me that for you the ‘wisdom’ that pour from their mouths is somehow omniscient. The way you go about quoting them it makes it appear as if you deify them. Oh, I like the irony of that from an Objectivist. LOL How about searching for something a little more irrefutable, such as evidence to back your assertions. Insinuation and innuendo do not pass for wisdom or truth in the real world. How about backing up with facts that offensive vituperation? Now as to philosophy as it relates to the concept of liberty, the possession of a firm philosophical base is important, absolutely, as it helps one to refine the understanding of the details of freedom and liberty, but it is not a necessity to grasp the concept. It is necessary to FULLY grasp the concept, and it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to properly promote and sufficiently defend it in the political arena. Just consider how the the insufficient grasp of such concepts by the Founding Fathers (and subsequent generations of American intellectuals) have damaged the cause of liberty ever since the American Revolution in the United States alone--from negro slavery and limited rights of women, to the regulatory agencies and the welfare state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 This thread is what my friend would refer to as a "conversation handgrenade". I agree with Mr. West that it was tossed into the crowd with the intent to see how much "damage" could be done. As has been pointed out, I have yet to see our topic starter successfully explain any philosophical or epistemological basis for libertarianism, let alone one congruent with Objectivism. VES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Hi RationalCop, This thread is what my friend would refer to as a "conversation handgrenade". I agree with Mr. West that it was tossed into the crowd with the intent to see how much "damage" could be done. Quite the contrary my friend. It wasn't meant to be that at all, it was never my intention, nor do I wish for this thread to continue on. I have stated my apologies, and I sincerely wish each and every person well, and I bear no ill will. I have given alot of complimentary statements in many of my posts in this thread. It is time to let this die out folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 This thread is what my friend would refer to as a "conversation handgrenade". I agree with Mr. West that it was tossed into the crowd with the intent to see how much "damage" could be done. As has been pointed out, I have yet to see our topic starter successfully explain any philosophical or epistemological basis for libertarianism, let alone one congruent with Objectivism. VES Hi RationalCop, Actually it was not meant to do that at all. I have stated my apologies for this thread devolving into a verbal brawl, I do not like seeing that happen on boards, especially good boards like this one. Let's let this die right here. I bear no ill will towards anyone here and I commend each of you for defending your beliefs so well and so passionately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts