The Proper Means of Communication

[Nicky]

Nope. Honestly, I am not arguing about a trivial matter. This is prevalent. Why do you want to make sex a tool for humiliation ? Is it the right tool for humiliation ?

You really don't get that those cartoons mock Islam's view of sex and pigs, not sex and pigs? Or, on a more basic level, that humor isn't to be taken literally?

Is there a need ? This gives grounds for people to think sex is immoral.

Only thing those cartoons give ground to is a deep, guttural gaffa.

Everything else, you're just looking for an excuse to do. The two savages were looking for an excuse to butcher people, and you're looking for an excuse to indulge your fear of dirty jokes.

Um, in this case, the terrorists won. Hebdo is dead.

Charlie Hebdo is not alone. It's also not dead, by the way (in fact it just ran its biggest edition, with a picture of an especially stupid looking Mohammad front and center), but the most important thing to note is that they're not alone.

When someone chooses to publish a picture Muslims don't approve of, they're not choosing death. They're choosing to take a risk (just like plenty of other people take a risk to defend freedom). Some of Charlie Hebdo's staff just happened to get unlucky and become the target of these two savages, but plenty of others are alive and well, and will continue to publish those pictures and create many more.

So, if the terrorists' goal is to silence criticism of Islam (which it is), all they've won is the lead they ate a couple days back.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Nicky

[Anuj]

.... and you're looking for an excuse to indulge your fear of dirty jokes.

 

Fear of dirty jokes ???          Well.. nice joke. 

[Devil's Advocate]

...

In the real world we know there are a billion Muslims, for instance. Needlessly pissing them off will not further my goal. Neither will needlessly pissing off religious people of all stripes, for that matter, will not further my goal. Rather, it will detract from it...

 

While I agree with most of your comments in this post, this particular item caught my attention.  You cannot "needlessly" piss off someone without knowing in advance what they find offensive.  Offensive humor can (and should) be ignored.  Being killed over a bad joke is not a response to aggression, it's an initiation of aggression and responding to aggression with appeasement only validates the aggressor.  To put it another way, saying "good dog" to a rabid dog, of forgiving the dog for being rabid doesn't properly address the situation.  We may safely presume that appealing to God (and his warriors) to smite ones enemies (for being faithless or insulting) invokes the antithesis of God and justifies retaliation with extreme prejudice.

[dream_weaver]

I believe that there are even better alternatives potentially available. For your last paragraph, I would personally strike "how can you raise such an asinine topic"; it adds some vitriol certainly, but I don't know what else it accomplishes. That kind of thing makes me feel defensive and might inspire me to respond with venom, such as by saying something like:

"It certainly might appear asinine to someone who doesn't know very much about communication."

In my experience, these kinds of flames tend to feed on one another; I would expect the conversation to degenerate further from there. And you'll notice that my response is directed towards you rather than the topic. So now we're talking about me (how can I do such a thing as raise this topic) and you (your knowledge about communication) and your evaluation of my choice in presenting my argument, when instead we could be talking about the ideas themselves. IMO, not ideal.

Furthermore, I've seen it argued before that "attacking ideas," in the manner you've suggested, is acceptable over "attacking people," because you're not technically talking about the person himself. I don't know that I agree. When I see the word "asinine" used in relation to what I've said, I'm apt to take it as applying to me in some fashion, if attenuated. For after all, what kind of person would raise an asinine topic in the first place...?

I think that the constructions "you are an idiot" or "what an idiotic thing to say" or "only an idiot would say such a thing" all serve to insult, but again, I don't know what good they do.

For myself, I'd rather just be shown the errors in my arguments, rather than anyone's evaluation of those same arguments (which don't seem to have any value without support anyways). Perhaps both can be done? Perhaps. But I believe I've found an informal correlation between those who resort to such tactics and those who cannot make a compelling case for their arguments otherwise.

An aspect you bring up here is the intimate relation between one's self and one's ideas. He called the idea I put forth stupid. I put forth the idea, so indirectly he's calling me stupid. He called me stupid. Even though it is an idea that is held being attacked, the individual becomes defensive perceiving the attack as being of a personal nature.

 

This would relegate insulting an idea to the realm of tossing a stupid idea out on the floor identifying it as such in order to contrast with a better position.

[Anuj]

You cannot "needlessly" piss off someone without knowing in advance what they find offensive.  

 

I agree with you. That we may not know the consequences all the time. But at least after knowing that something is offensive shouldn't one judge his/her actions ?

 

Being Objectivist, we strive and advocate maximum freedom in all areas, including Free speech. But did we ever advocate leeching ? Gaining a value at the expense of others. And the worst past is the group or the party that is the object of the bad joke only stands to gain humiliation. For example, Hebdo was earning money by humiliating Islam. How is it moral ? Should we promote this in the name of Free Speech ?

 

EDIT - Freedom is Freedom ! Similarly Free Speech should be just that - Freedom of Speech. But that doesn't make each and every free act moral or rational. 

Edited January 14, 2015 by Anuj

[Plasmatic]

Anuj said:

I agree with you. That we may not know the consequences all the time. But at least after knowing that something is offensive shouldn't one judge his/her actions ?

So if an immoral savage who promoted anti life action is offended by being called what he is, what judgement do you propose one draw?

Hebdo was earning money by humiliating Islam. How is it moral ? Should we promote this in the name of Free Speech ?

Ayn Rand earned money judging Kant as the most evil man in history. Does that make her an immoral leech?

Describing Hebdo's work as "Gaining a value at the expense of others" like a leech is an equivocation. Leeches do physical violence to their host. "Expense" here [As regards Hebdo] is not an initiation of force!

Objectivism is not a species of PC multiculturalism...

Edited January 14, 2015 by Plasmatic

[Anuj]

So if an immoral savage who promoted anti life action is offended by being called what he is, what judgement do you propose one draw?

 

You ask 'what' judgement do you propose. Before asking that question you should ask "why should you propose a judgement ?". In this case 'why' is the precursor to 'what'. You should put them on trail (judge) if there actions are affecting you, if not just let them be and you live your own life. 

 

There are subsets of religious people. One who are extremists/terrorists and two those who are not. If the actions of the terrorists are affecting you, find them out and judge them, know what their reasons are, and if deemed as a threat, terminate them. Their is a distinction here, to judge and to humiliate are two different words. And Hebdo was not judging, it was humiliating them as a whole, both the terrorists and the irrational innocents. In that process, 1) they risk making more enemies 2) they lost their own staff and few innocent civilians. Nothing changed for the terrorists! is there anything that one gains out of humiliation ? Well.. apart from making money as Hebdo did.

 

Rationally Judging is not bad but Humiliating is. 

 

Ayn Rand earned money judging Kant as the most evil man in history. Does that make her an immoral leech?

 

You are wrong in saying that Ayn Rand made money out of Kant. Rand made money out of her books, out of her philosophy - Objectivism. Is Objectivism all about Kant being evil ? Nevertheless, Rand was too quick to brand anything as evil that does not fit into her line of thinking. Did Kant do enough to be termed as evil ? He was just a Philosopher. He did not force anybody to follow his philosophy. You can call him irrational at the most but evil ? To answer your question- No, I don't think rand was immoral leech, but neither was Kant evil. 

 

Describing Hebdo's work as "Gaining a value at the expense of others" like a leech is an equivocation. Leeches do physical violence to their host. "Expense" here [As regards Hebdo] is not an initiation of force!

 

Can you clarify how is this equivocation ? Definition of the term leech does not include the initiation of force. Leech as a verb means plainly to habitually exploit or rely on other. Hebdo earns money at expense of religious groups by humiliating (not judging !) them. Can you refute this ?

[Devil's Advocate]

...Freedom is Freedom ! Similarly Free Speech should be just that - Freedom of Speech. But that doesn't make each and every free act moral or rational. 

 

This is your main (and best) point.  Ask yourself if someone speaking freely is an act of aggression.  In your response to Plasmatic you suggest walking away from actions that don't affect you personally.  Live and let live, correct?  And I agree with you because the benchmark for aggression is injury, not to your pride, but to your property.

 

Does humiliation equate to theft or murder?  Is faith diminished by ridicule??  Can God be injured???

 

An Islamic terrorist feels justified defending their faith (their God) by killing infidels who apparently threaten their existence with indifference and poorly drawn cartoons of questionable taste.  If there were a world court courageous enough to judge their actions, I believe it might find the intention to submit an unwilling population to Sharia Law a greater (and more credible) threat.  But there isn't one, so alas, we are left to defend ourselves as best we can given the "realities" of world politics; some with walls, some with resolutions and some with poorly drawn cartoons of questionable taste.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Since we're talking about communication--and presumably about interfacing with the world in general--I should like to point out that the Founding Fathers of the USA were, by all accounts, very good Christians.

 

Yet Christianity, taken to its logical conclusions, is incompatible with Liberty.

 

How did this happen? Aquinus's Angel. The FF did not do the work to take their own premises out to their logical conclusions. They went on to found an entire country that's lasted over 200 years and counting, so I hardly think there's anything temporary or tenuous about this state. One can imagine it lasting forever, given this evidence.

 

In the context of communication, therefore, it's not valid to ascribe specific beliefs to people that they do not have. It's not even valid to predict that they will have them. Not all Muslims are for Sharia Law--and I daresay only a tiny minority of them are for that. It's also quite plausible that a Muslim population (just as a Christian population here had) can, with blissful ignorance of their premises, create a roughly free society. For instance.

 

Therefore, in the course of communication, it's an instance of the "two tennis courts" problem when you have the following conversation:

 

S1: "I am a good Christian".

 

S2: "But that means you are in favor of Socialism, which you are in favor of Stalin, which means you are in favor of Siberian Death Camps".

 

S1: "WTF are you talking about? ..."

 

This sort of pattern happens all of the time, and it gets nowhere. It might be useful and fun occasionally for a purely academic discussion, but when talking about current events, and responses to them, then the context is present-day reality and immediately usable knowledge.

[DonAthos]

Ultimately when all is said and done, do you think angered, unclear thinking is the fault of the provoked or the provoker?

A conversation -- which was the original context of this conversation ("How ought we talk to one another?") -- depends on the actions of two people, each who ideally (and hopefully) are interested in achieving a productive discussion. My aim in raising this topic is to investigate "how can we do this more successfully?" It's not really about assessing "fault," it's about living better, and achieving our ends with greater success. As a member of a community which proposes to house conversations, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to discover/learn how best to have those conversations. As a moderator in such a community, I'd almost frame it as a "job description."

But in the interest of answering your question directly (which is one of the key ways I try to communicate respect in a conversation), if a person enters into a conversation with the aim of "being provocative" -- and if he successfully provokes -- then I think that's worth at least a share of the blame, if not the whole kit-n-kaboodle.

Should the person being provoked accept responsibility (or "fault") for feeling anger? Potentially a deep question.

I suppose our answer to that question initially depends on how we view anger, or emotions more generally. I don't typically *choose* to feel in one particular manner or another -- rather, I feel.

That said, I am certainly responsible for being the kind of person who would feel anger in some given situation -- for having those values and beliefs such that this would be my emotional response (along with whatever physiological and psychological architecture I have, which might not be in my strict control).

With this in mind, we might ask whether it is necessarily always a "fault" to feel anger? Or is that sometimes an appropriate response, given a reasonable set of values and beliefs?

Given a context where two people are involved in a conversation, and one participant is intent on "provoking" the other, I don't know how much moral blame I'd be apt to place on the person who responds with some degree of upset or anger. I think (though someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that sometimes Ayn Rand was upset in conversation. I'd expect that there were times she was right to be.

Then again, there may be strategies or techniques for people who feel anger, even in reasonable circumstances, to try to mitigate that anger. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to pursue such, for the benefit of one's life, though this line of conversation could conceivably extend into complicated questions of psychology beyond the context I'd rather examine at present, which is, again, "how ought we talk to one another?"

 

But, I think it's my job to think clearly for myself no matter how some other schmuck decides to behave.

I'm not well-equipped to discuss "anger" apart from my experience of it, but when I experience anger, one of the characteristics of that experience is that it seems to affect the quality/clarity of my thinking.

Now, maybe I'm overstating the case to liken this to being drunk? But when a person is drunk, I think that the clarity of their thinking is apt to be affected. Maybe we would still hold them responsible for thinking clearly? (And say that if they wanted to be able to think clearly, therefore, they ought not have gotten drunk.) Maybe. But when drunk, they will experience it in some particular fashion regardless of intentions to the contrary. And, when angry, my ability to process information clearly is affected.

Maybe others experience anger differently? Maybe they are very clear-minded and reasonable in their anger? I'll allow that as possible. But it is neither my experience internally, nor what I believe I've observed of others thus far in my life. What I believe I have experienced is that when people get upset, it works against their thinking clearly and reasonably.

When I want to convince another person of a point, or engage them in a productive discussion, I'd rather that they were thinking clearly, and to the best of their ability. I do not want them to be angry or upset -- that works against my ends. Generally speaking, I do not wish to "provoke." I wish to persuade.

I believe that provoking a person to anger works against my ability to persuade them in reason.

 

I think the longterm aim should be to just dismiss provokers who have disrespectful intent, rather than waste one moment of your life in an unnecessary negative state because of what someone else said to you.

Right. When a person is upset, I think it's a good question to ask "how best to respond"? For after all, even when people do not aim to provoke -- even when they are doing their best to be sincere and respectful -- it may happen unintentionally or through misunderstanding.

I think that there are several strategies available, including taking time away to cool down before responding, and redoubling one's own efforts to respond with tact (so that, if the first injury was unintentional, one does not potentially exacerbate the situation by responding with a purposeful slight). One strategy that I've tried to employ recently is to identify my own experience of feeling upset and to communicate it directly, along with an explanation as to why I'm having that reaction, insofar as I can identify it. The response I get to that can be illuminating, and in the context of a conversation, it can help me to determine whether to continue or not.

You're certainly correct that if I've identified a person who does not conduct conversation to productive ends, and who is not interested in exchanges characterized by respect and sincerity, but who instead routinely seeks to "provoke," it can help me to avoid getting in situations which would otherwise upset me (by not taking them seriously, and not wasting my time engaging them in discussion).

But there are potentially other actions a person can take, as well, especially insofar as a person is (again) a member of a community, and interested in that community taking a particular shape: fostering productive discussions. This thread is itself one such measure, to help us to discuss and identify the ways and means by which productive discussions may better be held. For if we'd like to make a better world for ourselves, and especially through conversation and persuasion, it might be worthwhile to try to illuminate the best methods for doing so.

Other behaviors which detract (such as, I would argue, intentional provocation) may be identified along the way, as well as specific persons who partake in them, defend them, argue for them -- and those identifications can also be beneficial for those who strive to be both sincere and respectful in their conversations; if one wishes to drive from Los Angeles to New York, it helps to recognize and avoid the potholes and the dead ends along the way.

[DonAthos]

An aspect you bring up here is the intimate relation between one's self and one's ideas. He called the idea I put forth stupid. I put forth the idea, so indirectly he's calling me stupid. He called me stupid. Even though it is an idea that is held being attacked, the individual becomes defensive perceiving the attack as being of a personal nature.

 

This would relegate insulting an idea to the realm of tossing a stupid idea out on the floor identifying it as such in order to contrast with a better position.

I'm sure there's a lot we could potentially discuss about this sort of thing. But when I'm confronted with a stupid argument during the course of a discussion, and if I'm being true to my vision for the kinds of conversations I'd like to participate in (and those which I believe will have the best outcomes), I'd respond to it thusly:

I would demonstrate what is wrong with the argument, as clearly as I was able, and what is correct in contrast. I would invite them to cast off their error and embrace the correct, not because they are irrational or stupid, but because they are (or have the potential to be) rational and intelligent. This is also how one conveys the respect necessary for a productive discussion, imo.

This is not to say that I may not evaluate some given argument as "stupid" or reasonably draw some conclusion about the person who has offered it (just as there are stupid arguments in the world, there are stupid people; this cannot be helped) -- but if I want to continue to have a productive discussion, I see no benefit in calling their argument stupid, just as I see no benefit in calling them stupid. I don't see what it will contribute to the proof/evidence that I'll offer to gainsay their claim, and I don't believe it will make for a more pleasant or a more productive or a more persuasive conversation. I do see how it could ruin the conversation, however, and frustrate my ends.

 

Therefore, in the course of communication, it's an instance of the "two tennis courts" problem when you have the following conversation:

 

S1: "I am a good Christian".

 

S2: "But that means you are in favor of Socialism, which you are in favor of Stalin, which means you are in favor of Siberian Death Camps".

 

S1: "WTF are you talking about? ..."

 

This sort of pattern happens all of the time, and it gets nowhere. It might be useful and fun occasionally for a purely academic discussion, but when talking about current events, and responses to them, then the context is present-day reality and immediately usable knowledge.

Since "satire" has been a subplot to this thread, I'll say that I find your "hypothetical" conversation to be an enjoyable and thought-provoking example of it.

[Repairman]

Hebdo earns money at expense of religious groups by humiliating (not judging !) them. Can you refute this ?

I will cheerfully refute this claim. Are you able to support it with a rational argument?

 

In the context of your statement, Charlie Hebdo exploits others. This is nonsense. They create a publication, which is purchased by a willing public. No one is exploited. Now, will you make your case that religious groups are financially exploited by Charlie Hebdo?

[Repairman]

Um, in this case, the terrorists won. Hebdo is dead.

Hedbo published today to record sales. The terrorists were killed, therefore they did not win. I suggest that an idea cannot be killed. And that your claim is highly inaccurate.

 

I, too, have a purpose to discourse: I seek the truth. It is unlikely that I will change anyone's deeply ingrained belief, neither do I expect to. In a honest and tactful exchange of ideas, one might persuade another to reconsider their point of view, and on rare occasion, win over someone to change their view. The goal of winning an argument is certainly the goal of advocates in a legal trial. But in ordinary life, the spontaneity of emotions often triggers an escalation of reactions with results both unproductive and often regrettable. Hysterical provocation should be avoided. And yet, the truth is the goal. I reject the bromide that "no one can know the truth." Ignorance can be cured, stupidity cannot. In my normal life, when in face-to-face contact, what really matters is whether you are right or not. I have often been wrong, and I am perfectly willing to acknowledge it, even after a verbal contest. If I am unprepared for the contested dispute, it's best to let it go. If I am right, and I have the facts in my advantage, the opposition usually yields, even if unpersuaded. Whether or not I've made a friend through the exchange hardly matters. If the person is irrational, I don't value his/her company anyway.

[dream_weaver]

I'm sure there's a lot we could potentially discuss about this sort of thing. But when I'm confronted with a stupid argument during the course of a discussion, and if I'm being true to my vision for the kinds of conversations I'd like to participate in (and those which I believe will have the best outcomes), I'd respond to it thusly:

I would demonstrate what is wrong with the argument, as clearly as I was able, and what is correct in contrast. I would invite them to cast off their error and embrace the correct, not because they are irrational or stupid, but because they are (or have the potential to be) rational and intelligent. This is also how one conveys the respect necessary for a productive discussion, imo.

This is not to say that I may not evaluate some given argument as "stupid" or reasonably draw some conclusion about the person who has offered it (just as there are stupid arguments in the world, there are stupid people; this cannot be helped) -- but if I want to continue to have a productive discussion, I see no benefit in calling their argument stupid, just as I see no benefit in calling them stupid. I don't see what it will contribute to the proof/evidence that I'll offer to gainsay their claim, and I don't believe it will make for a more pleasant or a more productive or a more persuasive conversation. I do see how it could ruin the conversation, however, and frustrate my ends.

This is clearly a case for tact and diplomacy.

To cite an example of using an insult effectively that comes to mind, Rand, in PWNI is providing snippets of philosophy people often use without realizing it is philosophy.

They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson.

 

Clearly the insult is directed toward Emerson, who was unable to attend the graduation ceremony that day. I can only imagine that the audience responded with a polite chuckle. In this way, it can be used like ridicule; to elicit humor.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Hedbo published today to record sales. The terrorists were killed, therefore they did not win. I suggest that an idea cannot be killed. And that your claim is highly inaccurate.

 

 

 

Hebdo can't spend those proceeds in heaven. Hebdo was a real person, as were the others who were killed.

 

Anyhow, recall that the purpose of truth is the enjoyment and fulfillment of your life. Its not an end in itself. We're not monks.

[Anuj]

I will cheerfully refute this claim. Are you able to support it with a rational argument?

 

In the context of your statement, Charlie Hebdo exploits others. This is nonsense. They create a publication, which is purchased by a willing public. No one is exploited. Now, will you make your case that religious groups are financially exploited by Charlie Hebdo?

 

They rely on humiliating Muslims if not financially exploit them. They create a publication that exploits the dignity and pride (perhaps false) of Muslims (both extremists and irrational innocents) which is purchased by a willing public. And 'to exploit' as such does not mean to leech.It only mean to make full use of a resource, more so in an unfair way. But 'to leech' means to exploit or rely on others.

 

The terrorists were killed, therefore they did not win.

 

Terrorist won my dear friend. You are making a mistake if you think they value their life. 

[JASKN]

Now, maybe I'm overstating the case to liken this to being drunk? [...]

I like your "drunk analogy" with respect to cloudy thinking, but I think the comparison is a little off. You choose when and where to get drunk, whereas getting provoked into anger is automatic and based on your prior choices which have directed your present thinking. Also, you may always think unclearly when you're drunk, but I think it's possible to get yourself to respond differently than thought-fogging anger, to a given situation. Using myself as an example, my best example is actually in arguing (I have other not-so-good examples where I've so far barely left the anger fog). Not very long ago, I would get angry or worked up any time someone disagreed with me. Then, it became very clear to me, almost suddenly, that I was gaining *nothing* from an angry argument. I was just petting my own anger, and gaining nothing else from the discussion. It was bizarre how quickly the anger stopped showing up in those contexts. Instead of getting angry, I'd either think, "I'd rather just go do something else," or I'd care more about what was actually being discussed.

 

Concerning your focus on a productive conversation between individuals, I think it's worth mentioning that responding here on OO.com isn't always for the benefit of the person to whom you're addressing. A member may want to just work out the ideas himself, or maybe he wants to respond for the benefit of a general audience who will read the thread in its entirety at a later date. Maybe he hopes to illicit better responses from more knowledgable users. Etc. Also, understanding how to respond tactfully on the internet is sometimes delayed at best (ie. harder to discover the type of person you're talking to), or even impossible. Maybe a member just doesn't care to make so many blind guesses about the disposition of the person to whom he's responding.

 

 

For me personally, when you mention "redoubling" my efforts to come across as tactful, my reaction is, "No." Maybe I'm more impatient than most, but I just don't care all that much to tip-toe around strangers' feelings, especially over the internet. What an exhausting job, with such an uncertain and minimal reward. This is the basic reason I'm lately leaning toward a "reasonable man" standard of discourse. If I think a reasonable man would be able to read through what I wrote and then respond decently, I think my job of tactfulness is done. The caveat would be if I really know and care about a person -- then, the chance of my extra effort in tact paying off would be greater, with my greater knowledge of his or her person. In fact, you can see this happen a lot on the forum, as a language or cultural barrier is revealed -- Anuj appears to be an example of this in this very thread! And since we know that you're easy to anger, we might keep that in mind before posting a reply that might be construed by you as insulting.

[JASKN]

Relevant to this discussion is the idea of "thick skin." I'm sure much could be said about this, maybe a separate thread. When talking to people, some easily forgive and forget, while others will hold a little grudge for a longer time or until some minimal repentance. This is a separate but related issue to "difficult" personalities, also relevant, where not much is meant by the behavior of one person which would otherwise be what others would call "rude." So, a winning combo would be a person with "thick skin" having a conversation with a "difficult" personality.

[Repairman]

Hebdo can't spend those proceeds in heaven. Hebdo was a real person, as were the others who were killed.

 

Anyhow, recall that the purpose of truth is the enjoyment and fulfillment of your life. Its not an end in itself. We're not monks.

Do you have proof of your first claim? My research tells me that Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine, not a real person. If you have evidence to the contrary, please submit it. As for your second comment, that is much more subjective, and my need for the truth may not be the same as yours.

 

They rely on humiliating Muslims if not financially exploit them. They create a publication that exploits the dignity and pride (perhaps false) of Muslims (both extremists and irrational innocents) which is purchased by a willing public. And 'to exploit' as such does not mean to leech.It only mean to make full use of a resource, more so in an unfair way. But 'to leech' means to exploit or rely on others.

 

 

Terrorist won my dear friend. You are making a mistake if you think they value their life. 

Anuj, it appears you are conceding your claim that there is no financial exploitation of Muslims. This is progress. As for exploiting the dignity and pride, you have added in parenthesis that your assumption may be "perhaps false." If you have doubts about your own claim, you have a better chance of persuasion if you were to qualify your claim in another way. The repeating accusation of "leech" is an inflammatory term, and in this case, inaccurate. Again, not the most productive use of language when making a civil argument.

 

Regarding terrorist, they were born to lose. They were losers when they crossing the boundary of rational thought. If the world takes up the practiced of suicide bombing and beheading as a means of settling ideological disputes, you may have a case, but as yet it is a practice confined to a minority of screwballs, misfits, and unwilling victims of Islam. We can certainly agree that they do not value life.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Repairman

[dream_weaver]

Relevant to this discussion is the idea of "thick skin." I'm sure much could be said about this, maybe a separate thread. When talking to people, some easily forgive and forget, while others will hold a little grudge for a longer time or until some minimal repentance. This is a separate but related issue to "difficult" personalities, also relevant, where not much is meant by the behavior of one person which would otherwise be what others would call "rude." So, a winning combo would be a person with "thick skin" having a conversation with a "difficult" personality.

Forgive and forget, holding a grudge - and I'll keep with this theme - anger?

 

Anger is an interesting animal. When I feel anger, my tendency is to direct it toward myself while searching for what it is that is making me angry. I get angry at myself for not being able to pinpoint a legitimate reason for being so.

 

Grudge. I hold a couple of grudges in life. Thinking of the individuals do not make me angry, but if I start to retrace why I hold the grudge, the anger builds as I rebuild the case for holding it.

 

Forgive and forget? Oh puh-lease. I think this is just a spin-off of "judge not and be not judged."

 

If anything, consider passion in regard to ideas. When an idea you hold as true is attacked, you become defensive, you can even become angry. It is the attack against which you become angry or defensive. Here, you can back off and re-evaluate. What is behind the attack? Do I understand it well enough to mount an effective counterpoint? If I did, would I be feeling defensive, or would I have just produced the counterpoint?

 

If I've produced a counterpoint and still there is no headway - do I move this to grudge territory? Why or why not? With an individual, my safety may be at stake. While also true on an internet level, I deem it to be far less likely. Can an individual harm me with their printed words? Nay, I say. It would take a great deal more sophistication.

 

This brings us back to anger. For this, I'll return to the reference thread featuring the political cartoons. Freedom of speech is the right to articulate an idea in a manner one deems to be the most effective way to get their point across. This includes the right to be wrong. In all of the places one can be wrong in life and try to articulate and get away with it, ObjectivismOnline has got to be among one of the most difficult places to do so. Objectivism is a philosophy that that essentially outlines the relationship between concepts and reality. When two (or more) individuals disagree on a matter, but agree to let reality be the final arbiter; if I am right they will learn, if I am wrong, I will; one of us is wrong, but both will profit.

[Anuj]

Repairman, firstly what is your opinion ? Do think its moral and rational to earn money by humiliating a group of people ? Be it by running a publication.

 

Now..

 

Anuj, it appears you are conceding your claim that there is no financial exploitation of Muslims. This is progress.

 

No.I never said that Muslims are financially exploited. Just in case, let me be clearer. I never said money is being looted out of Muslims. 

 

They create a publication that exploits the dignity and pride (perhaps false) of Muslims (both extremists and irrational innocents) which is purchased by a willing public. 

 

Funny! Why do you think that I would make a claim that which I think is false ? Were you trying to act funny or just delaying to provide an argument or Did you really not understand what i meant ? If you didn't understand my argument, it is not I whose in doubts, but you.    Anyway, I was talking about 'False' pride. It quite rampant in the religious circles, you know. I hope it clearer now for you to make a refutation. 

 

The repeating accusation of "leech" is an inflammatory term, and in this case, inaccurate. Again, not the most productive use of language when making a civil argument.

 

You say it inaccurate. I might agree if you submit your refutation with rational arguments against it. 

 

Regarding terrorist, they were born to lose. They were losers when they crossing the boundary of rational thought. If the world takes up the practiced of suicide bombing and beheading as a means of settling ideological disputes, you may have a case, but as yet it is a practice confined to a minority of screwballs, misfits, and unwilling victims of Islam. We can certainly agree that they do not value life.

 

Losing or winning does not necessarily depend on rationality of thought. If their objective was to kill staff members of Hebdo, as a retaliation for making offensive cartoons, they succeeded in that. Nonetheless, I agree with your moral evaluation of them as 'Losers'.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Anuj

[softwareNerd]

In all of the places one can be wrong in life and try to articulate and get away with it, ObjectivismOnline has got to be among one of the most difficult places to do so.

I don't think you are quite right here

Just kidding... spot on.

[Anuj]

Anuj appears to be an example of this in this very thread! And since we know that you're easy to anger, we might keep that in mind before posting a reply that might be construed by you as insulting.

 

Is this charity ? You or anyone else does not have to sacrifice JASKN ! If you feel that any post of yours or mine has potential to cause 'Anger', Please judge, evaluate and share. Just because somebody becomes angry or feels Insulted does not form sufficient reason to sacrifice, at least among people who are rational and not emotional. Correct me if I'm wrong but at least in this Forum, I don't think Self-censorship is necessary but moral evaluation is ! If you don't judge, you don't grow. Period.

 

I believe, your comment above is in response to my reply to "Man-with-Animal-sex" perverse cartoon post in this thread. Where was I wrong to call it uncivilized ? If you think I was wrong, please stand as an advocate to it instead of sacrificing. 

[Nicky]

They rely on humiliating Muslims.

They rely on insulting the imaginary god of a silly belief system. The only way you go from that to "humiliating Muslims" is by declaring that religious disagreement = personal injury.

That doesn't leave any room for free speech. Which brings us back to why those cartoons are effective communication: they illustrate in no uncertain terms that, in western societies, speech that insults your imaginary gods doesn't count as personal injury.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Nicky

[Anuj]

They rely on insulting the imaginary god of a silly belief system. The only way you go from that to "humiliating Muslims" is by declaring that religious disagreement = personal injury.

That doesn't leave any room for free speech. Which brings us back to why those cartoons are effective communication: they illustrate in no uncertain terms that, in western societies, speech that insults your imaginary gods doesn't count as personal injury.

 

Selfishness basically means to take care of yourself, not others, just yourself. Live and Let live. Why do care if they believe in God or Lord Voldermort ? If their actions are not affecting you - Just let them be.

 

I know it is in self interest to have a rational neighbor. But you cannot make them rational by insulting them. Just check out how many Anti-religious books are there. Objectivism itself is Anti-religion.  Nobody Censored them. Wikipedia hardly shows six books that got censored. Most books plainly present facts. Drawing cartoons of despicable taste stands only to insult them and could only possibly result in gunfire and bombing and battles and wars...

 

Again.. What is your objective by drawing cartoons that humiliate others?