CriticalThinker2000 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 What is this private/public forum of which you speak? I know not. Huh? I was talking about Objectivism Online. It's privately owned but open to anyone who signs up.You used this minor point to ignore what I was saying. While I do often post for only my own benefit (to clarify my thinking usually), it's way more enjoyable to engage with someone who is being honest. I fail to see how you can not understand the distinction between free speech and speech on private property that SNerd, DW, and I pointed out. In another thread you also refused to acknowledge the fundamental distinction between rights protection (force) and education (the mind). For someone with your experience, this smacks of either an honest bent towards a faulty method of thinking (rationalism) or dishonesty. Either way, I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Huh? I was talking about Objectivism Online. It's privately owned but open to anyone who signs up.You used this minor point to ignore what I was saying. While I do often post for only my own benefit (to clarify my thinking usually), it's way more enjoyable to engage with someone who is being honest. I fail to see how you can not understand the distinction between free speech and speech on private property that SNerd, DW, and I pointed out. In another thread you also refused to acknowledge the fundamental distinction between rights protection (force) and education (the mind). For someone with your experience, this smacks of either an honest bent towards a faulty method of thinking (rationalism) or dishonesty. Either way, I'm out. I've responded to the claim I don't understand that free speach doesn't mean this forum has to allow me to participate twice now, in posts #84 & #94, you are simply ignoring those responses, for whatever reason. In that other thread I challenged the premise that paying for anothers government service, be it security or education, was flawed and found that free riders would continue to exist even in a fully free society, i.e., that premise wasn't flawed. Playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate ignores the purpose it is used for. ... Learning the questions that explanations can bring up can fine tune an explanation. In this sense, someone taking up the role of a devil's advocate can be beneficial. Peikoff takes the role of devil's advocate in his Objective Communication course at one point. After the role play, he took the time to explain where the other participant could have done better. Does this describe the role you're aspiring to ascend to here? I defined my intentions in post #16, but if you're looking for what I think Nicky and CriticalThinker2000 could have done better, the former could approach an argument with consistency, i.e. not making offensive blanket statements and then calling foul when they are responded to in kind, and the latter could have responded to what I was actually challenging and not signing off on something easier to defend that wasn't being disputed in the first place. I've already acknowledged my presence as an interloper, or an Eddie Willers Objectivist. This is because I represent the POV of someone who appreciates Objectivism as presented by Ayn Rand, who herself appreciated religion as an early form of philosophy, and particular the efforts of Aquinas. Imagine her, in the spirit of how she encouraged others to make an effort to understand all philosophies (religion included) and compare them to hers, only to have those newcomers arrive here and not only be confronted with the kind vulgar dismissal of all religion as presented in post #51, but to have that image rationalized as an appropriate form of communication, and then to have Objectivists criticize any response in kind as inappropriate... consistency?! I argue for the minority view that Objectivism is worthy not because it promotes atheism, but because it represents the best evolutiuon of philosophy available today; warts and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 I've already acknowledged my presence as an interloper, or an Eddie Willers Objectivist. This is because I represent the POV of someone who appreciates Objectivism as presented by Ayn Rand, who herself appreciated religion as an early form of philosophy, and particular the efforts of Aquinas. Imagine her, in the spirit of how she encouraged others to make an effort to understand all philosophies (religion included) and compare them to hers, only to have those newcomers arrive here and not only be confronted with the kind vulgar dismissal of all religion as presented in post #51, but to have that image rationalized as an appropriate form of communication, and then to have Objectivists criticize any response in kind as inappropriate... consistency?! I argue for the minority view that Objectivism is worthy not because it promotes atheism, but because it represents the best evolutiuon of philosophy available today; warts and all. What would you have had the forum's presentation be instead of the cartoons? In my opinion, religion is vulgar. Rand went on at length about how the basic religious philosophy, altruism, is the polar opposite of her philosophy, rational egoism (not "atheism," by the way). In this light, it's ironic you'd repeatedly champion Rand as a religion-sympathizer. In a very limited way, she sympathized with the religious' struggle to form a life philosophy, but she did not sympathize with religion as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 What would you have had the forum's presentation be instead of the cartoons? In my opinion, religion is vulgar. Rand went on at length about how the basic religious philosophy, altruism, is the polar opposite of her philosophy, rational egoism (not "atheism," by the way). In this light, it's ironic you'd repeatedly champion Rand as a religion-sympathizer. In a very limited way, she sympathized with the religious' struggle to form a life philosophy, but she did not sympathize with religion as such. "I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one." ~ Ayn Rand I sense a shift towards the latter. That being said, I was originally drawn to Objectivism because of her position on altruism, her promotion of the 3As, and her consistency of viewpoint. What would I have this forum's position on the image presented in post #51 be? Consistency. Let's not pretend that a vulgar blanket statement that invites response in kind is uniquely appropriate. Nicky opened the door and I looked in to see what's what. To be fair, my "rebuttal" remains, and I'm still here, so good job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Really, the goal is just to live how you want. You may just be wasting your life counting on the persuasion of others. You can try, but there's no sense in living miserably because other people refuse to think differently. If people want to go around harming others based on false beliefs, that's why we keep bigger and smarter guns. Again, context. I said in the "social-political context". In other words, what you publish in a blog, what you put in the headlines of the editorial, etc. And I said if your goal is to make things safer for the world, etc. That's not everybody's or even most people's goals in publications like this. The Hebdo publication was entertainment and nothing else, and to that end they probably did great, just as Daffy Duck beat Bugs Bunny by swallowing TNT. He "won" too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 That'd be true if the target is a persuadable audience. For the most part, communication is about talking to persuadable audiences. On this forum, communication is generally for persuasion or describing an idea. If the audience isn't persuadable or seen as a waste of time, the speaker isn't going to manage anything without basic principles of communication. In a socio-political context, communication WITHOUT persuasion is really a way to either 1) point out a bizarre or absurd argument, or 2) call attention to a real problem that is too easily ignored. Or in some circumstances, getting a kick out of being a bully, a la Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher - shock that is pretty empty. There isn't an aim for persuasion needed always, but it's not merely shock, either. It is shocking, because, for example, radical Islam is clearly too easily ignored and the target is irrational, angry, and unpersuadable.. In this case, the violent dudes with guns aren't anybody's audience save our guys with guns. I do think Muslims, Christians, and other religious people can be persuaded to live in relative harmony with their society, and I think most of them want that. Hence common ground can be found. For instance, they need to condemn this violence, and also make sure they don't financially support anything that supports anything that supports terrorism. You can convince a Muslim to do this a lot easier than you can convince them that God doesn't exist. But yeah, I agree with all of those things above... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I do think Muslims, Christians, and other religious people can be persuaded to live in relative harmony with their society, and I think most of them want that. Hence common ground can be found. For instance, they need to condemn this violence, and also make sure they don't financially support anything that supports anything that supports terrorism. You can convince a Muslim to do this a lot easier than you can convince them that God doesn't exist. . I think you're being more than a bit naive. The fact that Muslims will be Muslims ensures that they will always believe in Allah, and that when their numbers are high enough, and their arsenals stocked well enough, it's time to call all of the faithful to prayer time, and if you're not among them, you definitely won't be "living the way you want." I may sound paranoid, but look at the evidence. How many Christians and other religions are causing the body-counts Muslims are claiming. I repeat: Claiming responsibility for the murders! They are proud of the slaughter. They are proud, and the moderates are silent, because it is consistent with their faith to slaughter. Persuading them would be indeed a fool's errant. Of course, no one expects to persuade Muslims to accept objective reality and abandon their faith, unless they are allowed sufficient exposure to an alternative culture. And that is why I support a culture that not only questions religion, but aggravates the the sensitivities of the religiously minded of all persuasions. At the risk of being accused of being "Islam-o-phobic", or some other form of bigot, I am well aware that many Americans held the same prejudice about Catholics not less than sixty years ago. But Catholics never had clearly stated religious instruction to impose the will of the Pope through militant means. Now, Crow, how would you go about persuading Muslims to live like brothers with the infidels, in light of the fact that that is against their religion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think you're being more than a bit naive. The fact that Muslims will be Muslims ensures that they will always believe in Allah, and that when their numbers are high enough, and their arsenals stocked well enough, it's time to call all of the faithful to prayer time, and if you're not among them, you definitely won't be "living the way you want." I may sound paranoid, but look at the evidence. How many Christians and other religions are causing the body-counts Muslims are claiming. I repeat: Claiming responsibility for the murders! They are proud of the slaughter. They are proud, and the moderates are silent, because it is consistent with their faith to slaughter. Persuading them would be indeed a fool's errant. Of course, no one expects to persuade Muslims to accept objective reality and abandon their faith, unless they are allowed sufficient exposure to an alternative culture. And that is why I support a culture that not only questions religion, but aggravates the the sensitivities of the religiously minded of all persuasions. At the risk of being accused of being "Islam-o-phobic", or some other form of bigot, I am well aware that many Americans held the same prejudice about Catholics not less than sixty years ago. But Catholics never had clearly stated religious instruction to impose the will of the Pope through militant means. Now, Crow, how would you go about persuading Muslims to live like brothers with the infidels, in light of the fact that that is against their religion? I think you are naive if you think Christianity is any different than Islam. Liberty is incompatible, theoretically, with the Bible every bit as much as the Qur'an. That said, all of the Muslims I've ever spoken to (have you ever spoken to even one?) aren't "proud" of terrorists or even support their actions in any way. They are even proud to live in a country where people have the right to insult their religion. Try to back up your broad generalizations with facts rather than feelings or Fox News commentators. You aren't going to persuade anybody to accept objective reality if you cannot even practice it yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_1 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) After 9/11 I was shocked that not a single member of the mosque behind my house made public demonstration against the crime done in the name of Allah. What I did see were thousands of Palestinians celebraging in the streets. On college campuses there were numerous muslim students yet there was not a single muslim demonstrator protesting 9/11 within 100 miles of where I lived. Now we see regions of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, etc controlled by muslim religious groups and killing thousands of innocents. Where are the protesters? What we have here is an echoing lack of communication from all those moderate muslims. My muslim friends hate jews and celebrate Palestinian bombs dropped on civilians. If those moderate muslims had any courage of their convictions, we would hear from them almost each week as new muslim attrocities occur. The lack of public demonstration nullifies private protestations of disgust. When we see muslims demonstrating in the streets against attrocities done in the name of allah, then I will believe the moderates truly exist. Pivate conversations on this topic mean little. Edited January 19, 2015 by aleph_1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) I think you are naive if you think Christianity is any different than Islam. Liberty is incompatible, theoretically, with the Bible every bit as much as the Qur'an. That said, all of the Muslims I've ever spoken to (have you ever spoken to even one?) aren't "proud" of terrorists or even support their actions in any way. They are even proud to live in a country where people have the right to insult their religion. Try to back up your broad generalizations with facts rather than feelings or Fox News commentators. You aren't going to persuade anybody to accept objective reality if you cannot even practice it yourself. Crow: 1. No where in my argument did I make any claim that Christianity was compatible with liberty. I would, in fact, agree with you that Christianity provides no solution. I do not support any creed of Christianity; if you believe I have at any point, please present your evidence. As for the notion that, "Christianity is any different than Islam," you are as ill-informed about world religions as you are about the persona, a.k.a. Charlie Hebdo. Jesus Christ, as his representatives claim, was a God-incarnate sacrificed in the name of humanity, as if he were a ritual offering. His passive resistance to his enemies and the authorities is regarded as a trait to be emulated by most Christians. A religion grew from his legend. Mohamed was a warrior, an extremely devious and aggressive warrior by all accounts. If waiting for the right opportunity to seize a target meant grovelling as if he and his followers were victims, then so be it. But in the end, he succeeded in conquering his Earthly dominion by subterfuge and butchery. The Prophet governed God's Kingdom on Earth, and his followers seek to renew that kingdom. Christ's kingdom was in a mythical afterlife. 2. Indeed, I have spoken with Muslims in my business, professional, and personal lives, and when the relationship is mutually confident, we have discussed the politics and image of Islam in current affairs. None of them believes that the Israelis have any rights to any so much as a bucket of sand in the Middle East, and Palestine is in a ransomed state. They are disturbed by the actions of Islamic terrorists, and admit that some in high places, including mosque leaders, use their influence to achieve political ends. Everyone of them admits to having violated the most orthodox tenets of Ramadan observance. In general, they are as hypocritical as any Christian. And that admission of hypocrisy may be their eventual redemption, in my "broad generalization." 3. I don't have cable TV, neither do I have any feelings about Fox News. I suggest you refrain from overexposure to your own television viewing, as they may affect your own objectivity. Now, I will ask you for the third time: How would you persuade any Muslims, let alone radicalized Muslims, to accept reason as an absolute, or to accept objective reality? What would you tell the jihadi , bent on destruction, to live with the infidel as his brother? What sort of reality would this sound like? I am not living under any delusions, but I'm willing to see your answer. Any further evasion will be considered a concession of "blank out." Edited January 19, 2015 by Repairman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 What is your point? ... That censure undermines reason. ... Do you think OO.com advocates hiding the "real" truth from its readers? ... No, but quotations around the word real trouble me; truth is truth. Proper communication necessarily leaves room for dissent, which is the niche I operate in. I'm not advocating some lesser truth. ... If not, could you not think of a single other reason why we might ultimately "censure" some particular kinds of posts? Yes, it's your house and proper for you to maintain the integrity of it. In the recent example being argued between Nicky and myself, had I initially posted offensive material, it would have been proper for you to remove it and warn/remove me. However Nicky initially posted offensive material and defended it not only as proper (to this forum), but that it clearly communicated something that no reasonable person should take offense to. His view was supported by yourself. I challenged what it communicated (and found agreement with another administrator), and I challenged whether that kind of material was offensive (and Nicky and you were offended). My goal was to respond to the topic of proper communication, and my point(s) were supported by evidence produced within this discussion. Having achieved my goal, I'm ready to return to the sidelines, or exit this forum at your discretion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted January 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The developing discussion about the true character of Islam probably belongs in some other thread. (This one, currently ongoing, seems a likely choice.) But one aspect of that tangent which does matter to this conversation, perhaps, is the potential existence of the unpersuadable. Are there people who can no longer be reached by reason (like the jihadis)? If there are, how do we recognize such a person in conversation? (I view this as a separate question from whether it is worthwhile to try to converse with anyone in particular; the proper answer to the initiation of force is retaliatory force, and jihadis don't need a strong rebuttal, they need to be stopped.) Potentially this opens up a broad area for exploration which certainly matters to the questions I've raised, and the arguments I've advanced, which is: how does persuasion (or persuasive conversation) actually work? And who does that work? What I mean is (and I'm fumbling a bit here, so please bear with)... Suppose a teacher and a student. When the student learns successfully, is it because the student has been successful? Or the teacher? I would argue that both have performed work and both have been successful. This is contra those who might contend that a good teacher can impart knowledge upon an unwilling student -- he cannot. (You can lead a horse to water...) It is also contra those who would hold the student singularly responsible for his learning success, regardless of the teacher. (You can't draw blood from a stone.) If there exists any such thing as a "good" teacher versus a "bad" one -- and I contend that there does -- then what could that mean except, in part, that some methods of teaching are likelier to be successful in imparting knowledge than others? All else being equal, a good teacher will have better success in imparting knowledge than a bad teacher, just as a good student will have better success in gaining knowledge than a bad one. Learning (in the context of the classroom) is a two-person activity. The teacher and the student both must show up and perform in order to achieve success, and both must accept responsibility for their efforts, for their actions, and for the results of the same -- which is their contribution to the learning process. Discussion is also a two-person activity, at minimum. All participants (if they desire success) must come to a discussion equally ready to perform and to accept responsibility for the success or failure of their discourse; that is, their contribution to it, and whether that contribution is likely to breed success or failure. Just as someone can be a good or bad teacher, a good or bad student, we can be good or bad partners in discussion, depending on our understanding of what discussion is, how it functions, and our choice of method and action for achieving success. I have seen it before where Participant 1 presents an argument and Participant 2 "doesn't get it," so Participant 1 comes back with, "well, it's not my fault you don't understand." (I may, at times, have also been Participant 1.) Strictly it's true: it's not Party 1's job to do the understanding of the argument he presents; however, he is responsible for his own end of the discussion, which includes crafting his arguments in such a way as to best be understood (and sometimes this includes answering objections, or questions, or being willing to reformulate his arguments). When Party 1 attempts to communicate and Party 2 doesn't adequately receive the communication, it is not necessarily the case that Party 2 has failed in his role. The initial communication may not be correctly fashioned. It might also not be a simple case of "either one or the other has failed." They both might have to accept some share of the "blame," and/or we must also recognize that discussion, like education, is neither effortless nor instantaneous. If a teacher presented a student with calculus for the first time -- laid the whole thing out in a single go -- we would not hold the student as deficient if the student were not immediately able to grasp its entirety, remember it in every detail, or apply it without misstep. Neither should a discussion be evaluated for success on the basis of whether or not a participant is immediately made aware of having been wrong, or understanding all of the implication. To attempt to bring this all together... I think that sometimes people come to a conversation with the intention of being polite, perhaps, but when their arguments fail to make immediate headway, rather than concentrating on their own efforts and whether they might be improved upon (for after all, their arguments are sensible to themselves!), or understanding that learning/changing one's mind is a process, they conclude that their "opponent" is either evasive, deliberately obtuse, or intellectually deficient such that they are unpersuadable -- not accessible to reason. Then, seeing no further reason to be polite, or having rationalized that this is the case, they let loose their frustration (along with whatever other psychological/emotional distress) in insult, perhaps in the desire to wound for its own sake, perhaps in the hope of shaming their partner into accepting their arguments, not in reason, but to avoid abuse. It might be the case that some people are simply not open to reason (in general, or on a specific topic). I don't yet know my own position on that, or whether I could identify it with justice, but thoughts on this topic are welcome. Edited January 19, 2015 by DonAthos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 DonAthos, If you care to look back at my post #38, I said some things much to the same effect as you stated above. I think we have all encountered people whose minds are not receptive to anyone's opinion save their own. Even when they have a smidgeon of common ground with the other, the fact that their emotional evaluation of the other shuts down the communication from their end. Therefore, I do not seek to persuade. But if an individual expresses an openness to sharing ideas and congenial conversation, and provided I have the discretionary time, then I have an engaging exchange of thoughts and stories. In keeping with the primary topic, I have endeavored to display what I believe is the proper means of communication, while pursuing my own selfish pursuit of the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 [...]censure undermines reason. [...] Yes, it's your house and proper for you to maintain the integrity of it. In the recent example being argued between Nicky and myself, had I initially posted offensive material, it would have been proper for you to remove it and warn/remove me. However Nicky initially posted offensive material and defended it not only as proper (to this forum), but that it clearly communicated something that no reasonable person should take offense to. His view was supported by yourself. [...] I challenged whether that kind of material was offensive (and Nicky and you were offended). My goal was to respond to the topic of proper communication[...] The point is that the contexts make similar material appropriate sometimes and inappropriate others. You provided the context, namely this forum as private property. Somehow it then follows that this forum choosing to censure some material necessarily undermines reason? How? And, somehow it follows that we're holding a double standard by not permitting users to post derogatory images of Rand, even given the context? How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The point is that the contexts make similar material appropriate sometimes and inappropriate others. You provided the context, namely this forum as private property. Somehow it then follows that this forum choosing to censure some material necessarily undermines reason? How? And, somehow it follows that we're holding a double standard by not permitting users to post derogatory images of Rand, even given the context? How? Reason suggests that if derogatory images of one form of philosophy (religion) are appropriate in this forum, then responding with derogatory images of any other form of philosophy (including Objectivism) would also be appropriate. Are you suggesting that a response in kind to "appropriate" material can be inappropriate when presented in the same context? It's being claimed that house rules make Nicky's content appropriate and my response inappropriate, i.e., that what is vulgar is determined by whether or not it includes a reference to Ayn Rand in Rand's house. Obviously as an administrator of this forum you are free to do as you please regarding regulating content and I certainly haven't disputed that. Both images (one explicit, the other mental) remain so the issue hasn't become a double standard and I'm grateful for that, not criticizing it. If the claim remains that vulgar images represent a proper form of communication in this house, in spite of evidence to the contrary, then so be it. Edited January 19, 2015 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) DA : Why wouldn't an Oist forum designed for discussion of Oism remove anti Oist propaganda? The whole "all philosophies are equal game" sort of comment, despite the fact that this forum is dedicated to only one, is multiculturalist nonsense. Edit: You wouldn't claim that complaining about a third parties wife is the same as complaining about the wife who's home your in, and who's husband you are complaining to, would you? Edited January 19, 2015 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 DA : Why wouldn't an Oist forum designed for discussion of Oism remove anti Oist propaganda? The whole "all philosophies are equal game" sort of comment, despite the fact that this forum is dedicated to only one, is multiculturalist nonsense. Edit: You wouldn't claim that complaining about a third parties wife is the same as complaining about the wife who's home your in, and who's husband you are complaining to, would you? Can you identify any of my comments that claim "all philosophies are equal"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 Can you identify any of my comments that claim "all philosophies are equal"?Ok fine, just "religious" philosophy and Objectivism are equal to you, right? Is this forum called "Philisophy Online," or is it "Objectivism Online"? This forum doesn't exist to treat all philosophies equally. Why is this explanation necessary? At any rate, the cartoon was published not as an argument against religions, but as part of a broader argument against people who shoot other people up for degrading religions. The argument for using the cartoon to communicate was in the cartoonists' context, not this forum's. I'm sure our members would find more eloquent ways to discuss the nuances of crap religious ideas when arguing against them in a forum setting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 Ok fine, just "religious" philosophy and Objectivism are equal to you, right? Is this forum called "Philisophy Online," or is it "Objectivism Online"? This forum doesn't exist to treat all philosophies equally. Why is this explanation necessary? ... Wrong again, not in my comments or arguments. Why are you wasting time arguing points I haven't made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) DA asked: Can you identify any of my comments that claim "all philosophies are equal"? I said "equal game" and yes: Reason suggests that if derogatory images of one form of philosophy (religion) are appropriate in this forum, then responding with derogatory images of any other form of philosophy (including Objectivism) would also be appropriate. [....] It's being claimed that house rules make Nicky's content appropriate and my response inappropriate, i.e., that what is vulgar is determined by whether or not it includes a reference to Ayn Rand in Rand's house.It is appropriate to call religion a "primitive form of philosophy", or evil and irrational in this Oist forum. It is a violation of the rules and purpose of this forum to do similar things in regards to Oism. Now, that being said, the moderators that currently are stewards here are extremely fair minded in regards to dissent with argument. Louie and I disagree repeatedly about matters within Oism and neither he, or any other moderator have treated me like the crusaders or jihadi ideologues that those cartoons are designed to ridicule. I have been warned on questionable occasions by previous moderators and that should put a bow on my sincerity in the preceding comments. Edited January 19, 2015 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 Why wouldn't an Oist forum designed for discussion of Oism remove anti Oist propaganda? The context in which it is introduced has much to do with it. Scott Ryan's critique of O-ist epistemology would be an example. While certainly not a racy as Nicky's illustration, this one illustrates how some view what they deem as intransigent Ayn Rand advocates. The raciest ones I could find in a quick search was from when Paul Ryan was trying to distance himself from Objectivism here, and another showing Alan Greenspan being dominated by Miss Rand here. Distinguishing contexts is important. Being able to grasp things from other contexts can be useful as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Weaver said: Distinguishing contexts is important. Being able to grasp things from other contexts can be useful as well. Indeed, I agree.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 DA asked: I said "equal game" and yes: ... I guess I'd need an example to work with... equal game? ... Now, that being said, the moderators that currently are stewards here are extremely fair minded in regards to dissent with argument... I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Devil's Advocate, I'm not asking that you be removed because of your beliefs. I'm asking that you be stopped from inundating the forum with nonsense. The problem with your posts isn't that they're contrary to Objectivism, it's that they're filled with pointless babble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) An example from the source of the material I respond to and babble pointlessly about in this forum (taken from a letter Ayn Rand wrote to a Catholic priest): "I was not 'taken aback' by the question about the sign of the cross. It is a question that I have discussed many times. What I did object to was the interviewer's way of presenting the issue in such superficial terms. I considered it offensive on the ground of respect for both my philosophy and for religion. The issue is too serious to hide behind symbolism" "No, I have no desire to 'replace the sign of the cross with the sign of the dollar'... Philosophy does not deal in symbols and does not need them." "Perhaps I should add that I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosopical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form philosophy." ~ Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand And thank you Nicky, for that left handed compliment. You're gonna miss me when I'm gone... Edited January 20, 2015 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.