Betsy

That depends on what you are trying to produce. It is unlikely I will persuade a dishonest opponent, but having a public debate with him or her can often expose their dishonesty or clarify the issues for those in the audience.

I never said they had to. My aim was to provide reasons why you can never be certain of someone else's future actions and character based on past observation. That would not follow. I do not regard mere interaction with someone as an endorsement or sanction. A soldier who engages in combat with his enemy on the battlefield is interacting with him, but neither sanctioning him nor granting that he is honest or rational. Likewise, I welcome most opportunities to engage in intellectual battles with my opponents so that I can present my evidence and try to convince thinking people that I am right and my opponent is wrong. Such engagement is not to be taken as any kind of sanction of my opponent.

Please do! Please don't. Please don't omit the corroborating evidence for my second quote that I included and that can found here.

But you don't know that. The only person whose honesty you can know about with certainty is your own.When judging others, you look at the evidence you have and, if you have never seen the person being dishonest, you can assume that he will be honest in the future. If you see him being honest in a situation where it is embarassing or disadvantageous to tell the truth and he could get away with being silent or telling a lie, it is evidence that he is actively truthful and will probably be honest in the future. Yet you can never be as certain with others as you are with yourself. In addition, free will plays a huge part. A man who is honest today can, and might, choose to become a liar tomorrow. That's right. When judging others, our knowledge is necessarily incomplete, but we must judge, given the evidence we do have, as carefully and as rationally as we can. I don't understand what you trying to say here. I would appreciate further clarification.

WHY? Isn't it so you can judge what they are likely to do in the future? So you can know whether to trust them, deal with them, and whether you can learn or gain any value from them? In other words, whether they good for you or bad for you? I hope so because I also know there are plenty of people who judge for less selfish -- and less rational -- reasons. Some have a Christian "church-lady" attitude and are always seeking sin in others so they can condemn them and thereby establish their own moral superiority second-hand and by contrast. Other over-zealous condemners are putting a moralistic veneer on their own very ugly hatred of the good for being the good. Observe how and why James Taggart passed moral judgement on Hank Rearden. How much you need to know about someone else in order to judge them is very contextual. If a doctor or lawyer gives me bad advice, I probably will not investigate to find out whether it is an honest mistake or evasion. I'll just find another doctor or lawyer.

I hope Mr. Swig will tell me whether his opening post was sarcastic or not. When I first read it, I couldn't tell and, not knowing for sure, I tend to assume people are saying exactly what they mean. I sure wish you had sent that PM to me. If I got Mr. Swig's position wrong, I want to be set right.

I don't, because, like color-blindness, there may be options not considered. This does not mean I withhold judgement. It means I need more facts to be sure. In a case like your apples example, I would ask the person why he said what he did. If he said, "I don't care what they look like. I'll be damned if I'll give you the satisfaction of proving me wrong," then I would have conclusive evidence of evasion.

That is rather strong, but not conclusive, evidence of evasion. It might also be due to color-blindness.

*** Merged topics *** *** Split from an earlier thread *** Observe that here Ayn Rand says, "an action you know to be evil" NOT "an action they know to be evil." Her statement applies to judging and choosing one's own actions, not to judging others. An individual can introspect and know for sure whether he has made an honest error or evaded, but it would take mindreading or the other person's reported -- and reliable -- introspections to know if someone else is mistaken or evading. When it comes to judging others, all we can do, and what we should do, is judge whether their actions and statements are (1) true or false and (2) good for us or bad for us.

A good point. Peter Keating abandoning Katie comes to mind.

What is the basis of this statement? I never made a request that FORUM members avoid NoodleFood and never would do such a thing. I prefer that they DO see exactly what she has to say and how she says it so that they can judge her accurately. I also have absolutely no objection to FORUM members posting on Diana's blog. In fact, I might be posting comments to NoodleFood right now, and recommending that members of THE FORUM do so, if Diana hadn't forbidden us to post there.

I can't do that since deleted posts to THE FORUM are always returned to a poster in a PM containing an often lengthy explanation as to why the post was deleted and suggestions for turning it into an acceptable post. That's rather personal and I owe it to my members to keep those communications private. Neither do I. How about we close these threads now and leave both Diana and her supporters' statements as well as mine up as posted? She's had her say and I've had mine. I invite those who want more information from my side to read THE FORUM, especially this thread, and to contact me at betsy(at)speicher(dot)com.

... which he has been known to change if he decides he is wrong. Is Dr. Peikoff separating himself from his statements when he changes his mind about something? Is he disrespecting himself? Please get your facts straight. I never said Dr. Peikoff's election statement was foolish. Jack Wakeland said that and I disagree with Jack Wakeland. I think that is wrong. Good, virtuous, heroic people are neither omniscient nor infallible. They can make mistakes. It is no disrespect to be honest and present them with evidence that they may be wrong about something. In fact, you are doing them a favor. I think it is VERY disrespectful to accept someone else's conclusion without thinking them through, especially if you have evidence to the contrary, and even if they are Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff. That would be taking them on faith and assuming that they are the kind of intellectual leaders who want to be taken on faith or have to be taken on faith. I think that was a serious mistake. It is possible to disagree with someone you respect without resorting to unfounded speculations as to the cause of their error. That figures. Different premises, different conclusions.

I think it is a matter of justice. Diana began this dispute here on OO.net by posting false and unjust charges against THE FORUM and Phil Oliver on the CDROM thread (here and here and here). I tried to correct the factual errors, but was informed that discussion of the matter was off-topic for that thread. That's why I started another thread here. Don't you think that if OO.net allows Diana to personally attack my FORUM and its members and call us "supposed Objectivists" (here) based on things we never said or did, that it should either delete Diana's posts or allow us an opportunity to challenge her charges somewhere on OO.net?

Fair enough. How about: Some serious public charges* made on OO.net against THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans have no basis in fact and condemnation of THE FORUM and its participants based on those charges is unjust. * These charges include, but are not limited to THE FORUM is "the prime source of vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivist intellectuals over the past year" Phil Oliver made "claims of irrationality, ludditism, and so on on the part of Leonard Peikoff" on THE FORUM THE FORUM admins delete posts they disagree with and endorse all ideas expressed in the remaining FORUM posts

It has also been a debate between FORUM supporters and detractors and there have already been many posters on both sides. I see a value in engaging anyone who has facts and arguments to bring to bear and not just Diana and me. I can understand if you, as moderator, might wish a more formal, structured debate, but is that really necessary or desirable here? While there may be excesses and inappropriate postings on this thread, we have also aired out some issues of concern to all the posters here and most of the readers of this thread. If you do have problems with how this is going, perhaps we can find a way to deal with those problems while keeping the good parts going.

Objectivist Living?!? That pro-Branden, anti-ARI board? You gotta be kidding. I parted ways with NB prior to 1968.

Make that 12 posts.

No, because Diana is not a member of THE FORUM. Also, Diana told me I was not welcome to post on Noodlefood. Therefore, if Diana and I are to engage each other in a debate, what better place than the "Debate Forums" on OO.net? It is as close a neutral battleground as I can imagine. That way both of us can be confronted by our accusers and have an opportunity to reply.

Diana is right and it was wrong of me to offer that as an option. I withdraw my offer and suggestion. Wow! I guess this isn't the first time that Diana has criticized people for the awful words she put into their mouths and they didn't say. (Exactly where did Phil Oliver ever call Dr. Peikoff a "luddite" as Diana claimed, anyway?) "Fully unanimous?" The fact is that Diana does have some friends, supporters, and defenders on THE FORUM -- or at least she used to -- and they are welcome to have their say. I will only delete posts attacking people personally and that applies across the board. So far I have deleted seven posts that personally attacked or psychologized Diana, rather than addressing her ideas and actions, and I will continue to do so.

Actually, she said Don't you think this could pose serious difficulties for a FORUM poster who has to interact with Diana at OAC or has to deal with her at conferences (she was the graduate assistant for a recent conference at Clemson) or wants to contact her publicly or privately about her writings, her private list of Objectivist bloggers, or her private list of Objectivist grad students? One person who sent me e-mail even mistakenly feared (and I corrected him) that Diana was also speaking for ARI and Dr. Peikoff and that posting to THE FORUM would get him into trouble with ARI. At least the four who communicated with me. There may be more I don't know about. That's private. No. I don't know. Personally, I tend to think that Diana's abandonment of TOC was genuine. I have come out and publicly stated the reasons why I think Diana's recent statements about Phil Oliver and THE FORUM are false and unjust. That will have to suffice because I am not a mind-reader and I refuse to publicly speculate on Diana's motivation based on the evidence I have and can demonstrate. What for? Stephen and others did not have to apologize since they "attacked" (actually disagreed with) Dr. Peikoff's statements and never attacked Dr. Peikoff personally in the first place. It would have been dishonest for Stephen to "recant" since, unlike Dave, he continued to disagree with Dr. Peikoff's views on that issue.

There were hundreds of posts during the election debate and not just the few briefly excerpted here. Yes he did. On the very next day, the owner of this forum opined (click here) and another member of OO.net concurred (click here) It appears Stephen wasn't the only one upset with Dr. Peikoff's election recommendation but at least he was taking issue with Dr. Peikoff's statements and not attacking Dr. Peikoff personally. November 14, 2003 - Stephen writes (click here) Two words out of context convey a different impression than the whole post (click here). Blasphemy! At least making a foolish statement isn't quite as bad as losing one's grip on reality or being senile. Don't forget - July 15, 2007 - Betsy Speicher says "I invite Objectivists to see for themselves, first hand, whether there really are "vicious attacks" on THE FORUM or simply occassional questions and polite, factual, reasoned disagreements." Betsy Speicher

I never said that she did, but it is a fact that after her statement I received e-mails and PMs from FORUM members saying they feared what Diana might do to them if they posted on THE FORUM. That quote was from OldSalt, a respected member of THE FORUM and of OO.net as well, and I suggest people read the entire posting to set the context. If that upsets those who like and respect Diana, it's a good thing they didn't see the posts I deleted! "Had to shut down?" I suggest you read the actual reason we gave for closing that section and check with ALL the experts on THE FORUM before speculating and insinuating. As for posting on NoodleFood, I used to post on NoodleFood myself (until Diana told me to leave) despite my disagreements with and doubts about her. I give people the benefit of the doubt and see anyone who might be fact-centered and value-oriented as a potential friend, regardless of where they choose to post, who they may associate with, or what disagreements we may currently have. If reality is the ultimate arbiter, these differences and problems can be eventually resolved. I am not insinuating anything. I am reporting the concerns expressed to me by some FORUM members. I am the same staunch supporter of facts, values, Objectivism, and Ayn Rand that I have been for the past 45 years -- and proud of it. I haven't changed at all, while others have changed and still others should have changed.

I have invited people from ObjectivismOnline.net to THE FORUM to check out whether what Diana Hsieh has said about us is true. In response, Diana has put people on notice that Ah, well! People who violate Betsy's Law #1* end up with the consequences of Betsy's Law #2.* Her loss. My only concern at this point is with those who have no choice about dealing with Diana such as students involved in some ARI academic conferences and OAC. I will understand if, fearing what Diana might do to you, you are now reluctant to post to THE FORUM. I'll do whatever I can to help. If you wish, I will set up a brand new anonymous User Name for you on THE FORUM and you can continue to post. Even if you choose not to post to THE FORUM, you can continue to send PMs to me or to other FORUM members and log in anonymously or as a guest to read posts. Also feel free to e-mail me with or for information or for any other purpose, talk to me at conferences or elsewhere, or just hang out in my vicinity. I welcome public exposure and discussion of my statements and actions from anyone because I have nothing to fear or hide or atone for. * Betsy's Law #1 - Reality is always the winning side. * Betsy's Law #2 - In the long run you get the kind of friends -- and the kind of enemies -- you deserve.

Nobody before Ayn Rand proved why it must be the only valid standard of ethics. Her identification of the relationship between values and life is unique. So is her argument as to why man needs morality based on the requirements of man's nature. The whole darn book.