Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Roark the dynamiter

Rate this topic


intellectualammo

Recommended Posts

Not to me. It actually loses much of its power with me now, after having looked more closely at Roarks actions.

 

Yeah, I know what you mean.  That movie Ocean's Eleven sucked, they spent the whole movie trying to steal from someone!

 

/sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I just noticed a newly reblogged post on honesty:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=26164#entry313639

And it reminded me that no one has answered my request, earlier on this thread (in post 234, as well as earlier posts), that Marc K., or anyone else, should provided evidence or quotes from Rand which support Marc's Peikovian assertion that closed-system Objectivism holds that it is moral to lie for the mere sake of protecting one's privacy when one is not being threatened with the initiation of force.

I was hoping that by now such evidence would have been provided, or the assertion withdrawn, since without evidence the assertion must be treated as arbitrary (as "a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort," and "a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality").

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Branden asserted in his Basic Principles of Objectivism course that privacy does not justify lying.  According to a thread on one of the Objectivist forums, this is in the audio release and is clearly the 1950's original.  Rand expressly endorsed the material in NBI's lectures as part of the Objectivist canon.

Edited by Reidy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed a newly reblogged post on honesty:

And it reminded me [...]

Blah, blah, blah ...

Hilarious that you want to reopen this thread and your opening line is about "honesty". Your impudence and shamelessness are unparalleled -- on this forum at least (well actually paralleled by your earlier behavior here) -- probably SOP over at OL.

In your last post to me you not only proved yourself a liar, you admitted to it. Here is the reply I had generated but didn't post because there was no point. Why talk to a liar? There is no reason.

 

-----------------------------------

 

And by the way you did make a positive claim about the Objectivist view on lying. You said that it was ONLY allowed when one is under threat of force. So contrary to your assertion that you can't prove a negative, I never asked you to. Provide a quote in which Ayn Rand said those were the ONLY conditions under which one could lie. Show me where she uses the word ONLY.

 

 

 

Oh, how big of you. Is that how it works? You just admit to lying and then everything goes back to normal? I don’t think so. How am I supposed to have a rational discussion with a liar, hypocrite, mischaracterizer, misinterpreter? I’m probably more likely to get the truth from Bernie Madoff.

You did much more than just “overstate your case”; you made up something you knew not to be true in order to support your preordained conclusion. In other words, you did exactly what you accuse me of doing below (with added emphasis); which, of course, makes you a proven hypocrite for the third time.

 

No. You entered this discussion with an irrational, emotionally desired conclusion -- that I am dishonest, "scum" and hypocritical -- and you've been actively focused on inventing reasons to continue believing that conclusion, while avoiding the substance of my posts. You still haven't offered anything to support your claim that Rand believed that privacy lies in the absence of threats of the initiation of force are moral.

Who is it who “invented reasons” to support their conclusion in this case Jonathan? Come on, time for another disingenuous mea culpa Mr. Hypocrite.

This is often the case with liars: they accuse others of the dishonesty they know themselves to be engaged in. Sometimes they do it to cover their tracks, sometimes as an argumentative device, sometimes because that is all they know: lying.

 

--------------------------------

 

I'm not really willing to further engage you on this subject since you have admitted lying about it. 

 

I have been debating with myself about engaging you in the current music thread because it would be an easy matter to show how you have been, at the very least, intellectually dishonest there also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah ...

Hilarious that you want to reopen this thread and your opening line is about "honesty". Your impudence and shamelessness are unparalleled -- on this forum at least (well actually paralleled by your earlier behavior here) -- probably SOP over at OL.

In your last post to me you not only proved yourself a liar, you admitted to it. Here is the reply I had generated but didn't post because there was no point. Why talk to a liar? There is no reason.

-----------------------------------

There. Now the ball's back in your court. Will you be as quick to admit to error and withdraw your statement until the time that you can back it up with evidence?

Oh, how big of you. Is that how it works? You just admit to lying and then everything goes back to normal?

I did not admit to lying, since I did not lie. I admitted that I was mistaken to have overstated my case, and I immediately withdrew my mistaken claim and corrected it. And yes, that is indeed "how it works" -- the rational, virtuous approach to realizing that one has made a mistake is to admit to the error and to correct it.

Will you do the same? Since you have no evidence that Rand held the belief that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable, will you admit that you've overstated your position?

 

How am I supposed to have a rational discussion with a liar, hypocrite, mischaracterizer, misinterpreter? I’m probably more likely to get the truth from Bernie Madoff.

You did much more than just “overstate your case”; you made up something you knew not to be true in order to support your preordained conclusion. In other words, you did exactly what you accuse me of doing below (with added emphasis); which, of course, makes you a proven hypocrite for the third time.

That's false. I made up nothing. I simply overstated my case. I've seen no evidence that Rand believed that Objectivism holds that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable, and, in fact, Rand's own writings, and those of the NBI which she endorsed, very strongly suggest that she held the opposite view -- that "privacy lies" are not morally acceptable.

 

Jonathan13, on 26 Feb 2013 - 3:58 PM, said:

No. You entered this discussion with an irrational, emotionally desired conclusion -- that I am dishonest, "scum" and hypocritical -- and you've been actively focused on inventing reasons to continue believing that conclusion, while avoiding the substance of my posts. You still haven't offered anything to support your claim that Rand believed that privacy lies in the absence of threats of the initiation of force are moral.

Who is it who “invented reasons” to support their conclusion in this case Jonathan? Come on, time for another disingenuous mea culpa Mr. Hypocrite.

You, that's who. You're still inventing reasons to express your rage, and to smear me as a liar. When I take the virtuous action of admitting to a mistake and correcting it, you attempt to spin it as an admission of a lie, and, therefore to use it as an excuse to discontinue the discussion (which is rather convenient in light of the fact that you still haven't offered any evidence to support your position on "privacy lies").

 

This is often the case with liars: they accuse others of the dishonesty they know themselves to be engaged in. Sometimes they do it to cover their tracks, sometimes as an argumentative device, sometimes because that is all they know: lying.

--------------------------------

I'm not really willing to further engage you on this subject since you have admitted lying about it.

I did not admit to lying. Anyway, I think that it's pretty clear that the real reason that you're trying to back out of the conversation is that you have no evidence to support your assertion that Objectivism holds that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable. If you had such evidence, you would have presented it instead of blustering and bluffing and attempting to smear me as a liar.

 

I have been debating with myself about engaging you in the current music thread because it would be an easy matter to show how you have been, at the very least, intellectually dishonest there also.

May I make a suggestion? I think that you should try to focus on the substance of conversations, and on proving your positions, rather than on attempting to show that those with whom you disagree are liars and intellectually dishonest and unworthy and beneath you. You seem to be primarily focused on trying to smear and discredit me rather than address the ideas that I've put forward. That tactic never works.

In everything that you wrote in your post above, you once again did everything but answer the substantive challenge that is facing you -- that of providing evidence that Rand held the position that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable. Your post contains no quotes from Rand or any other type of proof that Objectivism -- actual Objectivism -- takes the position that you claim it does.

The fact remains: I have directly challenged you, a few times now, to support your assertion with evidence. You've not done so. Instead you've dodged and weaved and resorted to distractions and personal attacks. I think that says a lot about your position.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah ...

Hilarious that you want to reopen this thread and your opening line is about "honesty". Your impudence and shamelessness are unparalleled -- on this forum at least (well actually paralleled by your earlier behavior here) -- probably SOP over at OL.

In your last post to me you not only proved yourself a liar, you admitted to it. Here is the reply I had generated but didn't post because there was no point. Why talk to a liar? There is no reason.

1) Jonathan admitted to being wrong, not lying, 2) a forum is not a place to go on about your dislike towards a forum member, 3) if it's a genuine issue to resolve by someone, bring it up to a mod. And if there's no reason to talk to a liar, then let it be. Even if he was lying, that doesn't make him wrong about the facts. It's by far more useful to stick to facts than get caught up in emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just remembered that I had intended to return to an earlier false statement by Stephen, and to refute it with a direct quote form Rand. Stephen wrote:

You did not say merely it was immoral to tell such a lie (as in referring falsely to the gender of the love of your life), but that it denied the employer his right to discriminate (your view, not Rand's nor an implication of her ethics). Indeed, that was the reason you gave for concluding it was immoral.

I was correct that Rand held the position that one has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, or for no reason at all, that one has the right to refuse to deal with, hire or associate with anyone, including for irrational reasons, and that he has the right to use and dispose of his property as he sees fit. As a private property owner and employer, one has the right to hire or not hire anyone he wishes for any reason he wishes. No one, including Stephen, has the right to subvert a private employer's right to not hire him and to use his property as he chooses.

Rand, VOS:

"No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man. A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him. Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine—but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law. Just as we have to protect a communist’s freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist’s right to the use and disposal of his own property. Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue—and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism."

J

Link to comment
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...