Why was my thread closed?

[Kyle]

Why was my thread closed? This is your web forum and I’m not contesting your right to close whatever threads you feel like closing, but I can’t help but feel that the decision to do so was somewhat arbitrary.

The thread was still active, it hadn’t become redundant, and there weren’t any personal insults. Perhaps the thread seemed like a waste of time, but participation was always voluntary, I wasn’t hounding people to post, and the fact that people returned to post multiple times suggests rather strongly that at least some people were interested. If no one was interested then, presumably, the thread would have died on its own.

Moreover, I only have one thread going so it’s not like I’m cluttering the forums with useless posts. The last thread I started was pursued for a long time and it turned out to be (at least for me) a satisfying and interesting discussion (I would hope it was for the other people who posted as well). My current thread seemed to be moving towards the same result before you closed it.

Finally, I think it’s a bit unfair to act as if I haven’t done the reading that’s been suggested to me. I listened to the Piekoff lecture, I read the previous threads on this issue, and I read an additional essay by Rand (Man’s Rights). Those were the only readings recommended to me and it’s somewhat unfair to hold me accountable for not reading articles which I haven’t been referred to (and thus may not know of).

Again, this is your forum and you’re free to take any actions you want – including banning me – but that doesn’t make the decision to close my thread seem less arbitrary.

-Kyle

[Kyle]

No answer? I wasn't just complaining. I actually did want to know.

-Kyle

[KendallJ]

Why don't you send a PM to the mod who closed it, instead of posting it publicly (which makes you appear like you're complaining).

Edited August 16, 2006 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

Another option is to read the last post, which briefly explains why. If you would like, I I could post a somewhat longer explanation of why the thread needed to be closed (without implying that I have any non-public knowledge of the reasons that spoke most clearly to the closer).

[Kyle]

The last reply was terse enough that I didn’t think I would get a response if I PM’ed the mod who actually closed it. (also, I get the impression that she dislikes me personally.) I was hoping another mod would explain why.

Another option is to read the last post, which briefly explains why. If you would like, I I could post a somewhat longer explanation of why the thread needed to be closed (without implying that I have any non-public knowledge of the reasons that spoke most clearly to the closer).

The last post doesn’t really explain why. It maybe hints at an explanation – because it contains an ungrammatical imperative telling me to listen to lectures – but that’s not necessarily an explanation. It could mean something like “I’m closing you post. Look at the lectures if you want answers from now on.” This would make a bit more than using the lectures to explain the closing of the thread because I made it clear in my posts on the thread that I had already listened to the lectures.

So I’m still not really sure why it was closed. If you think you can explain why I’d really appreciate it. I looked over the forum rules and I wasn’t able to find anything which really explains why my thread was closed – perhaps there some unspoken protocol here that I’m unaware of?

[DavidOdden]

If you think you can explain why I’d really appreciate it.

To begin with, although we don't have a special category of this type, the question falls into the "not that again!" genus, "prudent predator" species. There are some other categories that it's in, like the "I'm bored, here's a question" category, but the "another prudent predator thread" category is the important one. While you are not, from what I can tell, an idjit, it is clear that you don't have much of a grasp of Objectivist ethics and epistemology. Your MP3 just sort of came out of nowhere -- it's totally arbitrary. Well, actually it's false but I'm presuming that you're unaware that it's false. This is not a proper step in reasoning, and it should never ever be introduced in an argument, and, more important, you sort of should know that. Your questions were answered, but you apparently didn't understand the answers, so you continued to flog your untenable dead horse.

The main suggestion then is that you need to learn something about Objectivism (and there have been concrete suggestions) and to them I would expecially add Tara Smith's Viable Values. In my opinion, if you can read this stuff and still take the prudent predator argument seriously, then I guess you are too far gone. The second suggestion is that you try to understand, when a question has actually been answered, that it has in fact been answered, so if you don't get it, you need to find out how to understand the answer.

Perhaps you could especially concentrate on the concept "benefit", or "self-interest", to determine how the concept could ever apply to violation of another person's rights. I also recommend Smith's book which makes it clearer than I have seen before that "living" is not synonymous with "not being dead yet". Please also focus on the concept of "causality" and the role it plays in epistemology, which has to do with "principle", that concept which people have mentioned, oh I dunno, a couple of times.

To anticipate what you might be wondering, we don't have a "sandbox" for neophytes to get basic grounding in Objectivism, where disregarding well-known basics of Objectivism is tolerated to a certain extent on the presumption that you might need to work through a few zillion errors. I personally don't think a sandbox is necessary, and I could give you a few reasons why not to have one.

[JMeganSnow]

No answer? I wasn't just complaining. I actually did want to know.

That's nice, but you might want to consider that >24 hours is not an unreasonable amount of time to have to wait for an answer: some of us don't spend 10+ hours a day at our computers, and there are surprisingly few admins and mods for a forum of this size.

Your thread was closed for precisely the reasons David stated. In addition, I informed the other moderators and admins of my action so that they could review it and reopen the thread if they felt it was warranted. There is already a tremendous amount of repetition on this forum and no one here is qualified to teach Objectivist ideology, only to discuss it. If your contribution, after two pages of incredibly long posts, boils down to: I don't understand, then no one can help you and endless reiteration of the same confusion is of no benefit to anyone.

Nice crack about "ungrammatical" from someone that can't even spell Dr. Peikoff's NAME correctly.

[Olex]

It's nice to see a correct action being taken. Thanks, JMeganSnow.

[Kyle]

David Odden:

To begin with, although we don't have a special category of this type, the question falls into the "not that again!" genus, "prudent predator" species. There are some other categories that it's in, like the "I'm bored, here's a question" category, but the "another prudent predator thread" category is the important one. While you are not, from what I can tell, an idjit, it is clear that you don't have much of a grasp of Objectivist ethics and epistemology.

I can certainly understand being frustrated with the repetition, but, in fairness:

• Participation on the thread was voluntary – people who were interested could post while those who weren’t could have ignored me pretty easily.
  
• I’d already read the prudent-predator threads on the forum and decided that they didn’t answer my questions.
  
• My question was differed in substantial ways from earlier prudent predator threads – significantly, replies which are usually given on other prudent predator threads would be question begging on my thread.
  
• My uniqueness and non-circularity points hadn’t occurred in prudent-predator threads and (I think) were highly important points which deserved responses.
  
• Many responses given to the originators of prudent-predator threads were problematic and my responses to them (I think) show that. Included among these are the claims that stealing hurts you self esteem, the claim that thieves are dependent on producers in a way which hurts them, and the claim that thieving carries with it unique risks. Even if my thread had taken the exact same approach as every other prudent predator thread, then, it would have still covered new ground by providing new responses to old arguments.
  

Now, perhaps you still think that the thread wasn’t worth engaging in. I understand that. But would you go so far as to say that people who are interested shouldn’t be allowed to participate? Because that’s what an explanation of shutting down the thread is going to involve – an explanation of why no one should be allowed to post on it. I would have understood if JMeganSnow had decided that she didn’t want to post – what I don’t understand is why she decided that no one should be able to post.

Your MP3 just sort of came out of nowhere -- it's totally arbitrary. Well, actually it's false but I'm presuming that you're unaware that it's false. This is not a proper step in reasoning, and it should never ever be introduced in an argument, and, more important, you sort of should know that. Your questions were answered, but you apparently didn't understand the answers, so you continued to flog your untenable dead horse.

It didn’t come out of nowhere – it was a counterexample to other claims. A number of people made claims like “you’re going to have to hold a principle like X” and (MP3) was an example of an alternative principle. I wasn’t advocating (MP3) directly – just showing that they hadn’t exhausted the list of possible principles.

It’s like if I say “you’re going to have to spend your weekend on the lake or in Chicago” and you reply “why can’t I go hang-gliding?” It doesn’t mean that you actually want to go hang gliding – you’re just contesting the idea that I’ve exhausted all the possibilities. (If I then reply to you, “you can’t go hang gliding because X” then I would have given the same kind of response that people on the thread were examining before it was shut down).

The main suggestion then is that you need to learn something about Objectivism (and there have been concrete suggestions) and to them I would expecially add Tara Smith's Viable Values. In my opinion, if you can read this stuff and still take the prudent predator argument seriously, then I guess you are too far gone. The second suggestion is that you try to understand, when a question has actually been answered, that it has in fact been answered, so if you don't get it, you need to find out how to understand the answer.

Perhaps you could especially concentrate on the concept "benefit", or "self-interest", to determine how the concept could ever apply to violation of another person's rights. I also recommend Smith's book which makes it clearer than I have seen before that "living" is not synonymous with "not being dead yet". Please also focus on the concept of "causality" and the role it plays in epistemology, which has to do with "principle", that concept which people have mentioned, oh I dunno, a couple of times.

I’ll take a look at it, but another forum has been recommended to me and I imagine I’ll just go there next time.

JMeaganSnow:

Nice crack about "ungrammatical" from someone that can't even spell Dr. Peikoff's NAME correctly.

Needlessly harping on typos is for tools and I don’t do it. My point about ungrammaticality was only made because there was some confusion about what it is you were saying with your ungrammatical sentence. If the poor syntax hadn’t been relevant, I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I will change my spelling of “Piekoff” to “Peikoff”, though.

[DavidOdden]

One brief reply on an important point:

Participation on the thread was voluntary – people who were interested could post while those who weren’t could have ignored me pretty easily

I am the editor of an academic journal. My job, as editor, is to maintain the high intellectual standards of the journal, and in order to do this, any person who wishes something to be published in it must submit their proposed writing for judgment by specialists in the particular area, and it must survive my harsh evaluation. Those papers which meet those standards can be published, and those which do not meet those standards are rejected, and may never see the light of day. The fundamental thing that must be proven by the author is that the paper has a valid contribution to make.

OO does not require advance submission and vetting of posts as its means of quality control, but it done quite well with it's method of post-hoc repair. It has a superb team of moderators and administrators whose job is to observe threads and see that quality standards are maintained, taking any appropriate action -- closing the thread in this particular case.

It is essential that this forum maintain quality standards. There are two other fora that you might want to consider if you think that "you could just ignore me" is an appropriate response. For a virtually unmoderated group, go to the Usenet group humanities.philosophy.objectivism, which is bot-moderated to check for spam and banned people (it has 4 banned people -- Tim has been getting tough), where it takes years of repeated psychotic off-topic ranting about coal to get banned. Of, for completely unmoderated, try alt.philosophy.objectivism, where you have complete freedom.

The point is that the virtue of this group is that it has a good balance of openness but quality control.

Stop looking for a counterexample; start seeing what the correct principles are.

[JMeganSnow]

Participation on the thread was voluntary – people who were interested could post while those who weren’t could have ignored me pretty easily.

So? We don't allow porn, either, and the same objection applies.

I’d already read the prudent-predator threads on the forum and decided that they didn’t answer my questions.

We're not here to answer your questions or even to see to it that other people have the opportunity to do so.

My uniqueness and non-circularity points hadn’t occurred in prudent-predator threads and (I think) were highly important points which deserved responses.

Wishing don't make it so.

Because that’s what an explanation of shutting down the thread is going to involve – an explanation of why no one should be allowed to post on it. I would have understood if JMeganSnow had decided that she didn’t want to post – what I don’t understand is why she decided that no one should be able to post.

If I hear complaints from other posters, I might consider it: the main decision is that you should not be able to post in that thread until you have done some actual thinking. I could just suspend your posting if you would prefer.

Needlessly harping on typos is for tools and I don’t do it. My point about ungrammaticality was only made because there was some confusion about what it is you were saying with your ungrammatical sentence.

In that case, you ask "am I reading this right?"

Edited August 16, 2006 by JMeganSnow

[Inspector]

[*] I’d already read the prudent-predator threads on the forum and decided that they didn’t answer my questions.

[*] My uniqueness and non-circularity points hadn’t occurred in prudent-predator threads and (I think) were highly important points which deserved responses.

[*] Many responses given to the originators of prudent-predator threads were problematic and my responses to them (I think) show that.

Here is the point you need to focus on: your questions were in fact answered. I appreciate that you don't understand that fact, but it is a fact. Your follow-up questions (positing MP3, and a few of your other counter-arguments) only served to show just how far from understanding what principles are that you are.

The thread was closed because your follow-up questions and the direction you were shifting the thread were not productive and would not lead to the answers. They are dead ends based on false premises and if addressed directly, would only result in a circuitous game of "whack-a-mole."

As others have stated, if you really are interested in the answers (and I suspect you may be), then you need to start reading up on the subject of what principles are, what acting on principle means, what Objectivist epistemology is, re-reading what was said, and re-reading the prudent predator thread. The answers are there, I promise you, but until you understand some concepts of Objectivist epistemology, they simply will not make any sense to you.

That is why your thread was closed. Because the answer is staring you right in the face, but you don't have the tools to see it. Rather than expecting us to beat the square peg of an answer into the round hole that is your mind, it would be best for you to go and get those tools.

(As another way of putting it, you were too "caught up in the act of arguing back." It is best to take a break from arguing so that you can gain some perspective on the answers. I'm sure the mods will be happy to re-open the thread in time, if you do the right thing)

[Bold Standard]

I'd like to second the recommendation for Tara Smith's work. She's really got some interesting insights, and she often writes in a more "academic" style that you might be more comfortable with. And she's an ethics professor at UT, btw.

The main suggestion then is that you need to learn something about Objectivism (and there have been concrete suggestions) and to them I would expecially add Tara Smith's Viable Values.

[Felix]

Kyle, I've been reading your thread. It read (in style) like some of my old threads. And I must say that you are making the same mistake I still happen to make. It's your method of inquiry that is flawed.

Namely, you come here to learn. You have a certain idea of what's right (that principles should be caveat-laden) and you want to know why this is not the case. You receive answers. So far so good.

Instead of working on understanding these answers, you insist on your initial understanding and start defending it with all you can. Your focus in your responses to the answers is wrong. I have done that, too - several times. And more often than I'd like to I still catch myself doing this. From someone who is currently working on that behavior, here's a tip:

It helps to step back. Focus on understanding first. Don't focus on being understood. You are. You just think you're not, because you don't listen hard enough, because you're preoccupied with your current view. I've read this Thoreau-quote after one of my futile attempts to "make the others understand":

How can he remember well his ignorance--which his growth requires--who has so often to use his knowledge?

It's tough. It requires that you actually take a step back in your knowledge and set something you're certain as hell about back to enter the state in which it is possible for you to learn something new, that you may have overlooked. But it's the only way to really start understanding. There's also a nice Zen-story that I'd like to tell:

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meji era (1868 - 1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

Like this cup", Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

Your questions have been answered. You just don't see it. You have a lot of reading and thinking ahead of you.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Felix