Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DonAthos

Moderators
  • Posts

    1774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

DonAthos last won the day on January 28

DonAthos had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

DonAthos's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

318

Reputation

  1. Naturally it is the very thing that I say I don't want to develop into a major digression that you respond to, at length. All right, then. Objectivists are supposed to care about reality. We are also supposed to be pro-individual rights, which I take to be "anti-slavery." Slavery was a large-scale institution in the United States from before its inception until it was ended in a Civil War. This institution had deep and pervasive influence in many aspects of American life, particularly in the South, and after it ended that influence lingered, most visibly in ongoing efforts to maintain legal segregation (e.g. Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, etc.) and instill terror (the KKK, lynching, etc.). Some aspects of this sort of thing were ended sixty years ago or so -- and some (like the Klan) remain -- such that some people who were involved in these activities and personally supported them at the time, are still alive. The children raised in their homes, the virtues instilled in them, these folks and their descendants are still with us (and on school boards, and in the police departments). Victims were despoiled, their families sundered, their bodies broken, and their education and professional advancement denied. These folks and their descendants are still with us, too. And the racist ideology that was developed in large part to support these institutional wrongs persists. The consequences of slavery endure. I have known of people personally to speak (unironically) of the "War of Northern Aggression," which is how some in the South refer to the Civil War, even today. Because they yet believe that the Southern cause was just and the Northern, ignoble. I have known open racists and quiet ones. I have observed discussions of "race realism," even here on this forum, and Charlottesville was not all that long ago. And I am witness to the reactions or overreactions like affirmative action, BLM and "critical race theory." It seems clear to me that we have not yet settled these great upheavals, and yet there are questions that I'm not certain precisely how to answer. If your father steals something and gives that thing to you, does it then become yours? How much time does it take to legitimate past injustices? I don't think that any person is responsible for the sins of their father, but I also think that there are persistent wounds from wrongs done in the past, and ongoing troubles, and I don't think we do anyone any favors by pretending like it isn't so. Is this the obverse of the fraudulent coin which would proclaim that we are entirely unaffected by our past? If one looked back into the mists of time, of course we would all find our ancestors being victims and victimizers, in turn, and mostly none of that matters to us now. But that doesn't mean that the specific claim -- that there are yet today lingering effects from slavery -- is wrong. Do you think that whatever wounds were created with this most egregious violation of liberty, suffered by hundreds of thousands (or millions if we extend beyond the US) were entirely healed the first day after slavery officially ended? Day two? Was it the day the last actual slave died? Did not their children suffer to any extent? Or their children's children? What day would you fix as the day it was finally solved? Regarding our relationship with the past, I think Shakespeare's formulation is best: "What's past is prologue." I also have always quite liked Will Durant: "The present is the past rolled up for action, and the past is the present unrolled for understanding." Maybe that's the historian in me. But the point is that there are times when we must understand the present, and can only truly understand the present, in the context of the past. In that sense, it's true that we're never quite "free" from what's come before -- only sometimes ignorant. But we are neither bound by our past. We can make different choices, better choices, perhaps ironically because we understand and learn from our past. I suspect that there is some analogue here to the dictum "nature to be commanded must be obeyed": something perhaps like, "the past to be overcome must be understood." And in your response I sense something like dismay at the thought of being held to account for something you did not personally do. I understand: that's injustice, and it's nothing I support. Neither you nor I are responsible for what our ancestors did. Rather, we are responsible for our actions now, today. And while we may not have created the many problems that our ancestors bequeathed to us, the damage they did to the world, we do live in a world that suffers from those problems, that damage. We had begun this particular tangent when you'd written, with dismay, of "Americans...unearthing their previous so-called, 'imperfections' as a people and losing confidence in the country." But we do have imperfections which need unearthing, sometimes severe ones -- this is part of the moral reckoning to which I'd referred, with respect to slavery and so many other misdeeds. And if our purported confidence in our country is based on ignorance of these matters, then our confidence is to that extent unwarranted. Our country is capable of great deeds and great evil, and it has done both, and it can do either, again. And it is important that we know that, know of our capacity for right and wrong, because we are responsible for steering it into the future.
  2. When I read oblique, obscured stuff like this, I always find myself wondering... By "imperfections," are you referring to... slavery? Or something else? It's a touch too far for this thread, even for me who has never seen a tangent he didn't like, a rabbit hole he didn't instantly plummet down, but an institution of enslaving human beings over hundreds of years (if that is, indeed, the hinted reference) is much more than an "imperfection." I don't agree with the response generally, let alone every specific, but that sort of thing does justify some kind of a moral reckoning. Right. Individuals hold destructive philosophies to whatever degree they do, but rarely follow them consistently. You are also describing any number of "leftists." Yet I will continue to "worry" about bad philosophy, whatever its origin. Fair enough. The same holds true for socialism, etc. But what I've said in recognizing the destructiveness of Christianity and its incompatibility with Objectivism, and that it ought not be given moral support, is not at all the same as "wishing away reality"...? Religion will always be around; we should always condemn it. In this singular thread, you mean? I can't speak for others, but I am currently responding to the seeming defense proffered for Christians conservatives as freedom-oriented individualists who deserve our support. They are not and do not. There's no one here that I see trying to defend either "leftists" or collectivists or mystics on any grounds at all, but I'm certain that, if there were, they would be met with strong opposition. I'm sure that the "American religious" (does this include Jews? Muslims?) aren't some monolithic block with a defined agenda, but historically, American Christians (or at least some vocal subset of them) haven't been shy about trying to use political power to enforce their religious beliefs, when and where able. So, I don't know what they want, generally, or would want if they thought it was within reach, but I do know that there have been steps taken to limit access to abortion, or prevent it altogether, for instance. It's the same as with the religious -- there's not some monolithic block. There are indeed people who want a socialist state, but I'm not afraid of some imminent collapse into communism. We are a robust mixed economy, and most of the debate I see is about nudging the degree of that mixture in one direction or another. Those matters are important, and meaningful, but they are not revolutionary. Statism is long conceded by both sides. Individualism and, more concretely, individual rights, are generally threatened from all mainstream players (you and I are very much on the fringe). There are pointed dangers from the left, of course (I'm thinking especially of their current treatment of race, and disillusionment with free speech), but as far as "clear and present danger" is concerned, I think nothing else rises to the level of trying to overturn the results of the presidential election, or the growing conspiracist movements unhinging the American right from reality and destroying the GOP. _______________________________________ Completely coincidentally, I was looking for Christian-themed children's songs for my homeschooled daughter (we're learning about the Bible), came across this amazing, couldn't-make-it-up-if-I-tried entry, and thought I would share: O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E Obedience is the very best way to show that you believe. Doing exactly what the Lord commands, doing it happily. Action is the key – do it immediately, joy you will receive. Obedience is the very best way to show that you believe. Chorus: O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E Obedience is the very best way to show that you believe. We want to live pure we want to live clean. We want to do our best. Sweetly submitting to authority, leaving to God the rest. Walking in the light, keep our attitudes right. On the narrow way. For if you believe the Word you receive, You always will obey.
  3. I'm not certain what you're asking about collectivism being more or less dangerous/harmful than individualism. I don't see individualism as being dangerous or harmful at all. If it were a question about collectivism versus individualism, I can't imagine anyone here siding with collectivism. As to which ideology one should give one's moral support to? How is the answer not Objectivism? It sure as hell is not Christianity: Christianity does not deserve moral support, but condemnation. This is not to say that we must therefore condemn all Christians; there are plenty of great people in the world who are Christian (just as there are awful Objectivists). And so, as to "practitioners," you should offer your qualified support to the best Christians, the best socialists, the best people whenever and wherever you find them, and the best within people such as you find them. But that is not the same at all as supporting ideologies which you know to be destructive to life on earth. You are not forced to choose between Christianity and socialism: you can (and should) reject both, without reservation. Can we acknowledge the value of some abstracted aspect of Christianity? Perhaps. If you think that Christianity is individualistic, and hostile towards collectivism, then that's something good about Christianity. (Though, to be clear, I don't agree that Christianity is either individualistic or hostile towards collectivism.) But that wouldn't make Christianity good. It remains utterly opposed to Objectivism, for instance, on questions of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. (And often moreso than any number of "leftists.") And as politics necessarily depends upon those foundations, it follows that Christianity will produce horrible political outcomes regardless of any nominal stance with respect to individualism versus collectivism -- as it has done historically when sufficiently empowered. I think individualism is vitally important. But I believe that there are even more pressing issues, or at minimum equally pressing, such as a fundamental respect for reason and reality. For truth. And where politics are concerned, at least here in the United States, for preserving the liberal values and democratic institutions that allow intellectual minorities such as myself to even entertain the dream of one day moving things in a positive direction. If we're talking "left" and "right," there is no good side in America today -- no likely place to "throw one's weight behind," such as it is. And what is worse, they are getting worse, spiraling downwards seemingly in tandem. A double helix of death, if you will. Yes, the most rational and benevolent elements of Christians, conservatives, leftists, rightists, etc., need to come together and unite around our shared values for political purposes. But the values we support, and fight for, and seek common cause with others, must still be our values. We cannot pretend as though the American right, let alone Christian fundamentalists, share our values. They do not. And when our allies on any side extend past that point where they are working towards individual rights, and begin to work against them, our support must end exactly there and become opposition. I don't see how you come to this conclusion. Personally I've known people on both the right and left to be collectivist, individualist, and in-between. I have not seen anything to suggest that religious conservatives are "much more inclined to be individualist" or more inclined, or inclined at all. But I see you've posted more as I've been composing this reply: All right. So do we see Christianity as embodying an ethics of rational self-interest, or altruism? Self-esteem? Or self-abnegation? Life on earth and personal happiness? Or self-sacrifice, death, and rewards "after"? Independent thought, judgment, and "the sovereignty of [one's] mind"? Or subservience, blind faith, and the sovereignty of whomever is believed to speak for God? If individualism upholds the principle that a human being is an end in himself, then Christianity works to destroy individualism as it preaches that the only end and "proper goal of life" is God and his worship. In this quote you've provided, where do you see Christianity reflected at all?
  4. Is this the Objectivist version of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Look, we can say regarding breaches with reality that something more fundamental is "worse" in some sense than something less fundamental. An Objectivist who breaks with Rand on aesthetics is to be preferred over an altruist who yet accepts the existence of reality, who is to be preferred over a solipsist who denies that there is any such thing at all, all else being equal. Insofar as a collectivist diverges with respect to politics, and potentially (though not necessarily) an underlying ethics, it is yet less fundamental than the break with both reason and reality normally associated with religious fundamentalism. And there is no reason to believe that a fundamentalist won't also be a collectivist: the deeper the delusion runs, the worse the fruit we can expect on "higher levels." But in reality, every decision we make must be made in context. There's no such thing as the platonic ideal of a religious fundamentalist or a collectivist. Human beings (let alone societies) are extraordinarily complex, and in context, a given fundamentalist might be "better" or "worse" (for some given, actual purpose) than a collectivist, or vice versa. The idea that some abstract hierarchy of evil will give us real insight into American politics, or a specific scenario (like Trump v. Biden), is absurd. For one thing, American politics doesn't break along these lines. There is religion on both sides, collectivism on both sides, and there are people on the "right" who aren't religious at all just as there are people on the "left" who support capitalism, at least to varying degrees (and sometimes more than a given counterpart on the right). But far more importantly, individuals are individual. A religious conservative who is yet committed to the separation of church and state, may be far preferable as President than any typical liberal, his personal irrationality notwithstanding (and there are a host of potential psychological issues to consider); but also, a socialist who respects science and truth, and democratic institutions, could be preferable as President to a liar, fraud and conspiracy-peddler who seeks power for its own sake, despite nominally supporting free markets or whatever else. Real-world decisions must be made in the fullest context possible. I will further say that the seeming attempt to rehabilitate Christianity as some bulwark against socialism or Islam or whatever-the-hell else is abysmal. Christianity is awful, awful in theory, awful in practice, historically awful (and societies where Christianity has wielded extensive political power have not typically been exemplars of individual liberty, for whatever it's worth). And while probing the depth of that awfulness is an interesting exercise, perhaps, there are severe, nigh-immediate limits to its practical application; the most important thing about Christianity remains, to reject it.
  5. There's a world between starting armed conflict and Trump's actual relationship with not only Kim Jong Un, but Modi, Erdogan, etc., etc. Trump had clear admiration for "strong men" and the liberation that tyranny affords a leader, and this had practical influence on his foreign agenda. But honestly, I wouldn't care so much about his relationship with North Korea if Trump were not so damaging to democracy in America.
  6. This is a disappointing and dispiriting response. I'd hoped you could be better. I think your expectations are unrealistic. Philosophy (that is, good philosophy) is neither simple nor easy, and application of the same can be supremely complex. Ayn Rand was an extraordinary genius, but the people who have followed in her wake are... not necessarily of the same caliber, and Objectivism specifically has not yet been fully "fleshed out." It makes sense that various people trying to apply her philosophy, mere years after her passing, or otherwise lead their best lives, struggle in application or articulation -- especially with respect to principles that run contrary to our greater culture and learning. This forum exists, in part, as a testament to that difficulty -- and you will be hard pressed to find any thread in this forum that proceeds in exactly the manner you describe (though you are always welcome to "set forth general but simple philosophical principles" yourself; but then again, do not expect everyone to agree with you). People elsewhere in this thread are discussing justice (i.e. "getting what you deserve"). I'm not responding here to you as you deserve, as your reply merits. Because one often unheralded aspect of justice is that the person who metes it also necessarily suffers consequence. I will observe that when you say there are proposals that "being unknowingly diseased in public is the same kind of choice as committing murder," you are again describing other peoples' arguments in ways that they would not recognize, distorting them as a rhetorical tactic. This relates to the "pattern" I'd observed in your earlier reply, when you sought to describe me as "concrete-bound" because I wanted to discuss concretes, and etc. You are being dishonest. And it is possible that defense of your position is impossible without such dishonesty, but you should still strive for better. These matters are difficult enough to discuss without it. The only thing that justifies force-in-retaliation (i.e. "government involvement") is the initiation of the use of force. The reason why the government may prevent some particular action ("knows in advance that you are going to do such an act") is because some activities constitute a credible threat of harm or destruction, which is itself the initiation of the use of force. You have balked at the word "threat," then belabored unsuccessfully to describe it yourself, but Rand employed it (as Galt) writing, of the initiation of force that, "[to] interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival." When we act at the point of a gun, are "coerced," we need not have been "harmed" or have had any "physical" interaction at all to have been subject to "physical force," as Rand intends and employs it. This is why the police officer is justified in shooting the person who pulls out his cell phone and points it, as though it were a gun. You'd asked for an example of this happening in real life, and while I would find it amazing if you yourself honestly had not heard/read of similar episodes before, here's one. The site reporting this concludes that officers ought to "[take] some fire before dishing it out," but I don't agree. I believe that force is initiated -- and force-in-response is merited -- when you take actions that lead another person to believe, in reason, that their life or safety is in jeopardy. Which is to say, a "threat." (Here is a similar example, though without police involvement, from... er, now.) Threats are themselves (rightfully) illegal: you cannot tell someone that you will kill them (in any serious context; context matters); you cannot drive wildly down the street or start shooting your gun off in crowded public places. dream_weaver observed that there are "legitimate laws" against these sorts of activities, and Doug Morris is right in that we would not allow our neighbor to neglect a diseased tree such that it might collapse on our home, and the reason why is because: they threaten. Harm may or may not be "intended," but harm is threatened. Which is to say, they are the initiation of the use of force, and they justify force-in-response. (The level of force rightly employed depends upon the context; context matters.) For the purpose of this discussion, it remains to relate this to the spread of disease generally (would it be the "initiation of force," for instance, to secretly remove an agreed-upon condom during sex?), and then to the context of a pandemic, specifically (if some raging disease were far more deadly and spread by physical contact, how would we regard a "friendly," unasked-for pat on the back? It is a theme: context matters). And then even more specifically to the details of the current situation (there are different options available, including contact-tracing and targeted quarantines, as Yaron Brook advocated, for instance -- but a mandated quarantine is also a use of force, and first depends upon our general, principled evaluation). Yes, philosophy and its application are complex and they can set your poor head spinning! But I'm exhausted, and I have other things to do. Good luck.
  7. All right. I'm not Doug Morris. I well understand the difficulties in holding apart various lines of argument in forum conversations such as these, but I do want to stipulate that his arguments are not necessarily my own (nor do I mean here to disparage them; and in fact, I just now see where he has disavowed your paraphrase of his argument). Further, I don't tend to like to operate by "suggestion" and "implication": I much prefer to try to make arguments as clear and as explicit as I can, and deal with them directly. With all that said, I'm happy to reject the notion that fear is itself sufficient to say that a person has initiated force. I'm starting to notice a pattern. Because I use the word "fear," and recognize it as a real phenomenon, that does not mean that I'm advocating that "emotions are tools of cognition"; because I ask that we discuss concrete examples, that does not make me "too concrete-bound" (or "concrete-bound" at all), or mean that I do not wish to relate choices to abstract principles, or refuse to do so. Let's try to rein this in a little, in the interest of a productive discussion. I fully understand the value and necessity of abstraction, and I do not doubt that we will relate concretes to principles, and vice-versa, as our conversation proceeds. I would still like to discuss some concrete examples: Yes, that's fine, we can do that. But before we compare my example to similar cases, wouldn't it be appropriate to take a moment to discuss my "specific shooting example" directly? Or maybe you consider the answer the question I'd asked to be too obvious to need saying? As though I'd asked it rhetorically? But I do indeed "remember that the position [you're] advocating holds intent to be a crucial determinant of 'initiation of force'," and so I'd like my example considered in that light. The man pulling out his toy gun has no intention at all to shoot or harm the police officer. Who then has initiated force? Is there a shade of difference between "intent" and "reasonable inferences of intent"? In any event, I think the latter hews much more closely to my own ideas, yet... I'm not wholly satisfied on the point. Is the crucial question, "what does this person intend," per se? Or "will this person's intended actions do harm"? But let's review your examples. Your officer shooting hypotheticals are (as I'm sure you're aware) quite controversial (as my own might be, to some). I think that there are cases where pulling out a cell phone or wallet would constitute the initiation of force, and justify the officer firing in retaliation. At least, I remember having read a case before of someone who held their cellphone as though it were a gun -- and that the officer could not distinguish it. In such cases, there are a host of contextual details (what is the person's demeanor and prior behavior; are they complying generally with instruction; etc.) and we rely to a great extent on the officer's training. There may also be times when the officer acts in some manner contraindicated by his training or the contextual details of his situation, and bears responsibility for the initiation of force. (And we may further find fault with the training itself; these are very complex matters.) What would you think about it if I said, "If you're pulled over by a police officer, be very clear about what you're doing. Do not pull out your wallet without asking for permission to do so, and then do so slowly." Do you think that any such measures are (or ought to be) rightly undertaken? Or is the fact that we do not intend harm -- that we just intend to take out our wallet, to provide identification -- sufficient, and we should expect nothing bad to happen as a result? (And blame the officer otherwise.) Is what matters here our "intent," or is it the actions we take to communicate our intent to the police officer? What responsibility do we bear for taking actions that suggest to the police officer that he may in fact be in danger? Pulling out your cellphone in the mall isn't the same thing. The context matters powerfully here, to the point where people are probably not even paying attention to you or trying to infer your "intent." The same action with even the same rough "intention" ("I would like to make a phone call") in two different contexts -- in the mall, among friends versus being pulled over by a police officer who is responding to reports of an armed robbery -- may produce very different results.
  8. I agree that "fear is an emotional reaction." So what? If someone pulls a gun on another person, the person so assaulted must make a decision (with regards to self defense; a potentially life-or-death decision) in that context and no other. We can describe it, or "frame" it, as you suggest: that the person concludes "he intends to shoot me." But I don't think that does justice to the situation, to how human beings actually operate, in reality. You're pulling our conversation to the abstract; I'd rather make things more concrete. A man pulls out a gun and points it at a police officer. The police officer pulls out his own gun and fires first, killing the first man. Upon investigation, it turns out that the first man's gun was a toy. Obviously there was never any actual intention (or capability) on his part to shoot the officer. But who is responsible for what has happened -- for this man's death? Who has "initiated the use of force"?
  9. You're aware that it's Toohey who says this, right? Not everything Rand wrote out of her characters' mouths, let alone her villains', is meant to be reflective of her own beliefs. In her non-fiction writings, after all, Rand spent a lot of time and ink questioning various follies. But even if Rand had said such a thing in a straightforward fashion somewhere, it would be a mistaken sentiment. Understanding generally, and the nature of the mistakes people sometimes make specifically, is a good thing. Sometimes through our greater understanding we even discover that what we had once considered a "mistake" and a "folly" is not one at all.
  10. If it were reasonable to fear someone pulling out a weapon in the manner you suggest, such that a person might abandon his property in the name of self defense (or suffer some other, worse fate), then it would also be reasonable to "regulate" the pulling out of weapons in such manner -- by which I mean to regard it as the initiation of force. If I drive my car swerving down the road, and people leap out of the way or swerve their own cars to avoid collision, and injure themselves, I am responsible for their injuries. This is true even if I have no intent to harm them or even scare them (perhaps I am simply seeking my own thrill; maybe I'm teaching myself to drive). This is true even if it's accidental on my part. If someone were swerving their car down the road, putting all and sundry in danger, it would be reasonable to take action to stop them -- i.e. defensive or "retaliatory force." And it is further reasonable (insofar as we have "public roads") to make explicit the requirement that cars do not swerve their way down the street, and to regard such as the initiation of force. The fact of a pandemic is... a fact. It describes something real happening. It is context that matters to our reasoning and assessments of specific situations. While people here have mentioned the fact that a person always bears some measure of risk when venturing outside -- and that is true -- a pandemic is a meaningfully different state. Good philosophy means that we take everything into account, insofar as we are able. I invite people here to reflect on the notion of a more serious disease going around. One that kills more routinely, more certainly, and with less discrimination (with respect to age, etc.). Suppose it were granted that masks provided protection, and otherwise people must not come within six feet of one another lest they potentially transmit this very deadly disease. We would soon come to regard it as "the initiation of the use of force" for an unmasked individual to come close to us -- even if we did not know whether they had the disease or not. And we would be justified in using force in response, to avoid them or to stop them from approaching us. This may not have been true before the onset of the disease, and it may not continue to be true after the disease has been mostly contained (even if some risk of getting the disease persists in perpetuity), but while the disease rages, it is a fact of reality that matters to our assessments and cannot be ignored or rationalized away.
  11. If there were a more serious plague going around, and someone you didn't know approached you in a fashion that they could pass the plague on to you, if they were a carrier (let's say it's not obvious), I expect most here would recognize the justification for taking steps to defend yourself against the real possibility of harm their encroachment entails.
  12. It seems to me that this kind of thing gets said regularly around here without proper challenge. The idea of "left" versus "right" is mostly a fiction. It's not a distinction that has much real meaning. It's "traditionally right" (in America) to be hostile to certain social freedoms (e.g. abortion, sex, drugs) and "traditionally left" to be hostile to business freedoms, but what they both have in common is that they are both unprincipled and generally destructive to freedom. (I say "traditionally" because, being unprincipled, these things can quickly and easily flip from one side to the other, turn on a dime. The left was pro-free speech until it wasn't; the right valued law and order until the 6th. They aren't really defined by ideals, so much, but tribal affiliation.) Distinguishing between "left" and "right" is crucial for understanding modern American politics, it's true, but from the position of the Objectivist Politics? They're better defined, understood -- and rejected -- by their statist commonalities. The difference between Biden and Trump, for instance, isn't that one is pro-rights while the other is anti-rights: they both of them, and their parties, represent mainstream America. Mainstream America is not in a place where it will elect someone pro-rights to high office, or support/sustain them if they somehow managed to get there. Neither is it heading in that direction. America does not even understand what's at issue, yet. Insofar as we have taken it upon ourselves to spread the foundations of Capitalism and individual rights -- reason and reality (let alone rational egoism) -- we are utterly failing. Currently, the left is being overwhelmed by identity-politics progressives and the right is failing to fight off a bugnuts-crazy, conspiracy-minded takeover. We are caught between Scylla and Charybdis, and they are growing. As for a right or left "lean," it's kind of like saying that one has a slight preference for cyanide over strychnine. I mean, I guess? I've heard it has a sort-of almond thing, going on. But the difference is mostly inconsequential in the long term. In my experience, the left throws better parties and plays better music, for whatever that's worth. (Though I do have a soft spot in my heart for the various fundamentalist Christmas parties and holiday concerts I've attended over the years; it's often wholesome in such an earnest way that it touches that deep-seated It's a Wonderful Life/Charlie Brown Christmas place in me.) It mostly accounts to me and where I'm at in my life, Harrison. Since becoming a father, my patience for my daughter's bullshit has gone up dramatically, but my patience for the bullshit of everyone else has gone down by the same measure. But you know, I never quit for long (enough).
  13. Truly, as soon as you say such things as "capable of shame," "remorse," "soul-searching," and so forth, my mind goes to Donald Trump and his sons, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Rudy Giuliani, Bill O'Reilly, etc., etc. These are the folks who "go high." The deep introspectors. So you're lending support (however you want to cast that support) to an assault on the Capitol, against the results of a democratic election, by a frothing, conspiracy-fueled mob, because... you have concerns about mail-in ballots. There is no way for me to respond to that appropriately. Here's an article about one of the deaths by natural causes. I've found it fascinating to read here that the woman who got shot while trying to break into a location where people were being protected against mob violence didn't "deserve" it, but the people under assault did. But more incredible than that, perhaps, is the notion that people just up-and-died by natural causes during the riot. The discernment on display is breathtaking. ___________________________ I've got to go do better things with my time for a while. This isn't even entertaining or valuable as an exercise. It's just exhausting and sad.
  14. If there's any one thing Rand would've supported, I'm sure it's mob violence in the name of lies at the behest of an authoritarian against democracy...
  15. Some congressmen (which is inclusive of senators: Congress is comprised of senators and representatives) continued down that path, despite the insurrectionists' egregious acts, others did not. The reason why many of them agreed to challenge the election originally is because they were under political pressure to do so, by Trump and his supporters. They are deeply concerned with their continued ability to fundraise and be elected to office, and sought to appease these radical elements. In this way, they were not "risking their future political careers" so much as doing what they thought best at the time to ensure them. This is also why they were willing to abandon their challenges when the optics of such a protest changed. Not because they "changed their minds" about anything, but because they judged that the political blowback for further supporting Trump's claims, especially in that moment, was no longer worth it. Easier in the sense of being more consistent and reasonable and supported by evidence, yes. The idea that Trump's "top value might be his country" is tortured and preposterous, and an infinitely more difficult case to make. You may as well suggest that Hitler really just wanted to provide showers to the Jews and accidentally mistook Zyklon B for shampoo. ("Haven't you considered, just for a moment, that his top value might be hygiene?") In a way, Trump's motivation is almost beside the point. That he was so hostile to truth, so damaging to our democracy, is enough: and he could have the best motives in the world, but if his implementation of those motives is so consistently poor and self-refuting, then he has no business sniffing power regardless. But inferring his character, insofar as we are able, does help us to contextualize his past actions and predict his future ones. As just one example of so, so many, Trump's challenge to the election was both consistent with, and predictable by, an understanding of his character as fundamentally "self-enriching and self-aggrandizing." Not with any love for or valuing of his country, which both literally and symbolically came under assault as a direct result of Trump's actions. (Remembering Rand's essay on "Apollo and Dionysus" for just a moment, can you imagine what she might have made of... oh, someone dressed as a viking, storming the Capitol?) This conversation reminds me (depressingly) of conversations I've had and witnessed with creationists. Yes, if I was willing to throw out all other evidence, including the evidence of my senses and what my reason has apprehended, I might reach some other conclusion. But why in the hell should I ever reject evidence and reason in that way... and what does it mean to witness Objectivists calling for such a thing? You could answer me here, or you could circle back to respond to my questions about the "de facto monopoly" or how Objectivist intellectuals are now leftists, or you could move on to some other, equally arbitrary claim. It doesn't really matter and I understand that the specifics of your arguments are not the point; they are fully fungible. You have crossed over some kind of epistemological threshold -- an event horizon, the existence of which I can infer, but not truly see or understand for myself -- and only you can choose, howsoever such a thing is done, to bring yourself back. I sincerely hope that you do.
×
×
  • Create New...