Cole

The reason vs. faith debate proposal draws into question the suggestion made by jrs; that both debaters should be in agreement with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. I don't see any reason why matters of metaphysics or epistemology should not be debated. Afterall, arguments against metaphysical axioms are the easiest to disprove. However, it may be helpful for the first post by each debater to be a formal argument (in the style of Traditional Logic) with clearly defined premises and a conclusion. This way it can be discovered exactly where the point of disagreement is. The biggest problem I imagine happening is that there will be no clear conclusion to the debates. It's rare for one side of a debate to admit defeat and for the debate to end. When it comes to internet message boards, it usually means that debates go on endlessly (or just end abruptly with no conclusion) repeating the same points. Although this behavior is much less likely in the Objectivist arguing the devil's advocate position, it still poses a problem to the debate forum. It would seem that the easiest solution would be to have a third-party judge to decide when the debate has been concluded. The trouble with this is that the third-party judge may simply be wrong, or that the very notion of this type of final-say (Objectivist) arbitrator would scare away any potential non-Objectivist debaters. I am willing to argue for the devil's advocate position on anarchy or intellectual property, or the Objectivist position in any debate. I suspect that the reason vs. faith debate will be interesting and informative. Edit: I wrote this before I saw nimble's post. I'd rather he take the non-Objectivist positions on anarchy or intellectual property since these are his actual opinions.

My objection to the new forum (as it was created- not as it was proposed), as is apparently shared by nimble, is that it nowhere allows for explicitly non-Objectivist arguments. These posts are forbidden by the forum rules, and there was never any exception made to these rules. Greedy Capitalist said this about the new forum: "There will be no judges in a debate, but the debate parameters and forum rules will be strictly enforced by a moderator, and violation of the rules is grounds for termination of the debate." (emphasis mine) Since the forum rules still prohibit using the board to advance non-Objectivist ideas, and since these same forum rules still govern the new forum (according to Greedy Capitalist's quote), then posting explicitly non-Objectivist arguments in the new forum is not allowed. Therefore, the new forum does not permit anything that was not permitted before its creation, and it is not the forum that was being proposed in this thread.

Re-introducing an idea does not involve repeating the entire idea- especially when the original idea is easily accessible to everybody reading the re-introduction. It was proposed in the opening post of this thread.

No. The ability to supply a demand should be a criteria in adding a forum- which is evidenced in the popularity of the forum after it is created. When the new forum does not permit or categorize anything that was not previously permitted or categorized, then it makes since that the forum would be very unpopular. I was referring to "Debate Forums" as it currently exists- I was not referring to any propositions. I was not predicting the future. I was commenting on its actual state. The evidence that it is the least popular forum is that it has zero replies. If you can't find where I object to an idea, then on what basis do you believe that I do object to the idea? Why would you imply a conclusion in which you yourself admitted there was no evidence in support of? What lead you to think that I advocate allowing non-Objectivists to post anywhere on OO.net? Quite to the contrary, I made this thread to propose the idea of a specific subform for "Arguments Against Objectivism." How you could see this and gather that I oppose a specific subforum, and instead support the idea of non-Objectivist arguments being posted anywhere on OO.net, is beyond me.

I'm a life-long Apple user. The company seems to always be at the innovative front of the personal computing industry. Check out its new Mighty Mouse. Also, this is a particularly cool new iBook feature: "Now every iBook G4 is equipped with Apple’s Sudden Motion Sensor to help protect your most valuable asset: your data. The Sudden Motion Sensor senses change in axis position and accelerated movement. In the event of a drop or fall, the Sudden Motion Sensor instantly parks the hard drive heads so they won’t scratch the disks on impact, lessening the risk of damage and improving your chances of retrieving valuable data. When the Sudden Motion Sensor senses your iBook G4 is once again level, it unlocks the hard drive heads automatically."

If I remember correctly, ARI sells copies of C-SPAN appearances (unless/up until it is posted on C-SPAN's website).

But does the city have the right to enforce economic regulations on private property in the first place- even if they inform a new buyer of the regulations before he decides to buy the property? I'd say it does not have this right, and that it is an initiation of force upon the property rights of the person selling the property and the person potentially buying it. Consider this example (one of my favorites [used to debunk any type of "Implicit Social Contract" justification]); There's a vacant house next-door to mine. When potential buyers go to look at it, I inform them that by moving into the house next-door to mine they must follow certain rules that I've created. When a new family moves into the house and refuse to obey my rules, I sue them for breeching the agreement. My argument is that, since they were aware of the rules I set for anybody who moves into the house, and since they decided to move into the house anyway, then this represents an implicit agreement to my rules- which they broke. Do you see the immorality involved here? Do I have the right to set regulations on other people's property? Apply this example to the issue of zoning laws.

Where is the distinction between language and concepts? How come something be a matter of language yet not be conceptual?

Hi Youngman. To help clarify; The Objectivist position on aesthetics is not the same as its position on beauty. The standards of beauty are different from the standards of good art. For example, I think that the sun setting over the ocean is beautiful. However, I would not classify the scene as an instance of proper aesthetics. Luckily, Ayn Rand wrote an entire book on the subject- which I suggest you include in your study. I hope I get the chance to discuss college football with you some time. I'm a big Fresno State fan (and student).

From the looks of things, it's shaping up to be the least popular forum on the board. I think this clearly confirms the problem I pointed out in my last response. I'd like to now re-introduce my idea of an Arguments Against Objectivism forum in hopes that it will be implemented.

I don't know that Objectivism says anything in regard to the specific part that physical attraction plays in the concept of love. This shouldn't be taken as a sign that Objectivists disregard physical attraction. It is my own conclusion that an importance placed on good looks follows logically from the Objectivist description of love- "...it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another." "Good looks" can be objectively categorized as being the biological signs of excellent health. To the Objectivist, whose ultimate value is the preservation and enhancement of his own life, excellent health is a virtue. Therefore, seeing the biological signs of excellent health ("good looks") in another person is evidence that the person also holds the enhancement and preservation of his life as his ultimate value. I'm confused about your description of attraction as being "intrinsic." I would argue that attraction necessarily involves two people, and therefore cannot exist as an intrinsic attribute of an individual. [Edit: Removed unnecessary quotation]

He seems to fall squarely into the secular humanist camp. Although, his position on "altruism" in the cited quote is quite vague. It isn't clear if "considering the well-being of our fellows" is a form of egotistical benevolence or sacrificial selflessness. While he suggests the collectivized entity "species" as being a proper beneficiary to an individual's actions, he doesn't explain why the preservation of the species is contrary to each individual acting in his own selfish interest. Nevertheless, he's extensively knowledgeable on a wide range of popular issues and seems to have the resources necessary to get himself noticed.

I really don't understand C-SPAN's programming philosophy.

Thanks for the link. I listened to him on his home station, KFI, so I figured that once they took him off that he was gone for good. Although, now that I think of it- I was in Hollywood a couple of weeks ago and I was able to pick him up on a different station there. It's too bad that KFI dropped him. It was a California powerhouse and provided the large, first-time listener base that his show required. Yeah, but even then he credits God for making America the best country in the world- not its founding fathers. His new hobby seems to be holding televised debates in large auditoriums packed exclusively with his supporters. As long as the audience cheers and boos at the right times, he can conclude that he "won" the debate. If a potential guest chooses to not subject himself to this ridiculous situation, then Sean Hannity declares him to be a coward. I'd love to see how he holds up in a true, fair, scholary debate.

He's my favorite. Also, Toccata and Fugue in D Minor is always my example of "a great work of art, but I don't like it."

Can you please explain what this means; "...with a reply-limit of 24 hours and a maximum of three responses per side." Edit: Also, I'm not sure how this forum allows for any debating that could not just as equally be had in a previously-exisiting forum. You state that the purpose of the new forum "is to allow debaters holding two opposing positions to take each other on. Debaters can choose from among several debate formats, some of which permit other members to contribute to the debate. There will be no judges in a debate, but the debate parameters and forum rules will be strictly enforced by a moderator, and violation of the rules is grounds for termination of the debate"- all of which was already acceptable in the other forums. If this is the case, then the new forum is useless. It doesn't offer a new category. My idea was to create a forum that would make permissible something that was previously prohibited, and therefore cannot be categorized by any of the existing forums. If arguing for explicitly non-Objectivist positions is acceptable in this new forum, then perhaps you'll want to mention that in the OO.net board rules.

I'm not following. If the non-Objectivist positions being supported are the same, then why should previous registration with the forums be a requirement? It is their registration date- not the position being argued- that should be the standard in determining acceptance?

Forgive me, but I don't understand what was so murky about the proposal in the first place. I thought that by refering to it as an "Arguments Against Objectivism" forum that it would be clear that I was talking about argumentation or debate. I don't think that's a need we'd have to put any added effort into filling. If the forum were created and the word was spread, those who are interested would come on their own.

Yes. I really can't see it as being something that would require increasing the number of moderators. It would seem that the current level of moderation would be enough to cover such a forum, especially while it is new and its needs are still being gauged.

Where did you take that quote from? I've read the thread and couldn't find where it was said. The difference would be that the subforum would be specifically for non-Objectivists who oppose Objectivism. There should be no difference in the level of attack that would be required to warrant negative sanction. The moderators should not allow any attacks, but only civil arguments.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh in hopes that he will be gone and Walter Williams will be taking his place. Although, the last I heard of Walter Williams was when he gave a very utilitarian justification for capitalism that sounded like some kind of brand of socialism. I like that Rush Limbaugh is educated on subjects such as history and economics and that I am actually able to learn new facts from him. I think that Sean Hannity is the worse, with his bland, repetitive appeals to tradition. I was also a big Phil Hendrie fan- back when he was on the air.

What do you think of creating a subforum for non-Objectivists to present civil arguments against certain aspects of Objectivism? The forum rules state: "This website (http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/) facilitates trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism. The primary -- but not only -- form of trade will be information about Objectivism and discussion about its applications. Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. Anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s philosophy may join. However, questions, discussion, and posting of new threads must not contradict the purpose of the forum." While it doesn't outright prohibit non-Objectivists from arguing against Objectivism, it traditionally seems like doing so is discouraged. Fostering discussion among non-Objectivists would allow us to clear up misconcpetions about the philosophy, persuade opponents, and draw people (who may not be Objectivists or students of Objectivism before reading the forum) to a rich archive of accurate information on the subject. Arguments from opposing philosophies would create new and exciting discussion topics (as it is now, thread topics are often repetitive), allow Objectivists to concretize and validate their own position through the useful tool of debate, and cause non-Objectivist arguments to be publicly debunked. An "Arguments Against Objectivism" subforum would also benefit all the other subforums by acting as a filter. Posts by non-Objectivists would then be able to be made in (or moved to) the new subforum instead of cluttering the others. However, it should not be used for Objectivists who are having difficulty or questions about a certain aspect of Objectivism. The subforum should only be used by explicit non-Objectivists. All of the same rules of etiquette should still apply- and perhaps be even more strict to ensure order and civility. Posting rude, insulting, or purposefully irrational criticisms of Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism should still be against the rules. How does this idea sound?

I think you misinterpeted whatever you may have read about it. The book you linked to was not written by a "Sciabarra-type." Quite to the contrary, the book was written as a critique of Sciabarra's book Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation. You can find a review of the book you linked to here.

I think the fact that Che Guevara's face has been ironically commercialized has soothed any annoyance that I may have gotten from it. "Baby Che"

Don't get me wrong- I love eating meat. I was just challanging AutoJC's claim that humans must eat meat in order to live healthy lives.