Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

Rate this topic


Zoso

Recommended Posts

As I said in my first post, I wasn't suggesting that a government is in anyway obligated to give money to the victims of such disaters. My statements were directed to the all too many people in this thread that confused thier arguments by saying that somehow the victims didn't deserve money because they were anti-american, or suggested that it was far better that these people die as they hold no value in society, to the ones that called such people the enemy, to those that suggested they got what was coming to them because of thier own fautly governments that make for such poor living conditions.

I for one do not agree with many of the decisions that my government makes, I vote and I get by. As it is not my intention to spend my life as a martyr trying to change the ways of my government at the cost of my own happiness, am I then at fault for its desicions. The suggestion that much of this thread was making was that the value of someones life was somehow tied to thier beliefs or country and NOT, as I said, focusing on the fact that it is not the function of a government to aid other strugging countries and spend unwilling people's tax dollars on such ventures. If you read back many people put some amount of focus on whether or not these people were deserving of said money. That is what I am taking issue with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As I said in my first post, I wasn't suggesting that a government is in anyway obligated to give money to the victims of such disaters.  My statements were directed to the all too many people in this thread that confused thier arguments by saying that somehow the victims didn't deserve money because they were anti-american, or suggested that it was far better that these people die as they hold no value in society, to the ones that called such people the enemy, to those that suggested they got what was coming to them because of thier own fautly governments that make for such poor living conditions. 

I for one do not agree with many of the decisions that my government makes,  I vote and I get by.  As it is not my intention to spend my life as a martyr trying to change the ways of my government at the cost of my own happiness, am I then at fault for its desicions.  The suggestion that much of this thread was making was that the value of someones life was somehow tied to thier beliefs or country and  NOT, as I said, focusing on the fact that it is not the function of a government to aid other strugging countries and spend unwilling people's tax dollars on such ventures.  If you read back many people put some amount of focus on whether or not these people were deserving of said money.  That is what I am taking issue with.

OK, I guess my confusion in your posts stems from your use of the word "deserve." What do you mean when you say that they are debating whether these people deserve the money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just trying to say that their were many people who were so off topic by saying that the reason that the governmant shouldn't give these people our money was because of various attributes these people had, not plainly focusing on whether or not the government had right to send our tax dollars to those countries. They were attaching a general value to the lives of all of the people in the struck areas and making suggestions of the worth of thier lives based on political or personal views they assumed these people had. I am not saying that these people deserve help because they are in need, I am saying that some people were alluding to the idea that the disaster there was some how warranted and that we should be glad that all those people are dead They were making suggestions that some people "deserved" to live while others do not based on social, political, personal and economic factors. Which is not a call for anyone to make. I only wanted to point out how sentiments such as those negate clearly so much of Ayn Rand's own feelings of the importance of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just trying to say that their were many people who were so off topic by saying that the reason that the governmant shouldn't give these people our money was because of various attributes these people had,  not plainly focusing on whether or not the government had right to send our tax dollars to those countries.  They were attaching a general value to the lives of all of the people in the struck areas and making suggestions of the worth of thier lives based on political or personal views they assumed these people had.  I am not saying that these people deserve help because they are in need, I am saying that some people were alluding to the idea that the disaster there was some how warranted and that we should be glad that all those people are dead  They were making suggestions that some people "deserved" to live while others do not based on social, political, personal and economic factors.  Which is not a call for anyone to make.  I only wanted to point out how sentiments such as those negate clearly so much of Ayn Rand's own feelings of the importance of life.

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I agree with you on that. Too many times during this thread have people brought ought straw men to avoid the real issue: governemnt spending of our tax dollars. This is why I said I'm amazed this thread has continued for five pages so far. Government taxation is such a clear cut issue there should be no need for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote

These post cause my heart to palpitate. It saddens me so much to hear so many references to to words like "evil" "enemy" and the most discusting of all "felicitous disaster." Ayn Rand put it that nothing was more important to an individual than their own life and that should be understood. It implys that if you respect the need for you to watch out for yourself alone you would likewise understand that everybody elses life is as important to them as yours is to you. That then should translate into a great appreciation for life...everyones.

quote]

May I remind you that the United States and her allies are at war. This war was started by a cabal of greasy hoodlums who insist al Quar'an is the word of god. Al Qur'an is said, with cogent documentation, to have been inspired if not authored by Mohammed. He, as I stated in another post, was a mass-murderer and child molesting serial rapist.

Pray consider this: The 100, 000 Islamic Indonesian tsunami dead are that many fewer of those eager to perpetrate enormities resembling the butchery of the unarmed Jersey Copts. Moreover, that means when the time comes -and I think it inevitable-the Coalition will require a fewer nuclear devices.

If that doesn't work for you: As a charter member of the 'ignorant oafs' :P I think it accurate to say that our compassion for the tsunami victims is coterminous with that of John Galt and Ellis Wyatt for those mind-haters who perished in the Taggart tunnel catastrophe. B) Have a nice war. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It saddens me so much to hear so many references to to words like "evil"  "enemy"  and the most discusting of all "felicitous disaster."

Why? Do you not believe that the forces of international islamofascist terrorism are evil? Do you not believe that they are our enemies? Is there something wrong with the word "evil" or "enemy?"

Ayn Rand put it that nothing was more important to an individual than their own life and that should be understood.  It implys that if you respect the need for you to watch out for yourself alone you would likewise understand that everybody elses life is as important to them as yours is to you.  That then should translate into a great appreciation for life...everyones.
I would agree with the above statement, but I don't think that you comprehend its full meaning. Our enemies are enemies of reason; enemies of all who draw breath. They are a threat to all human life. As such, a person with an appreciation for human life would have no pity for those who seek its utter destruction.

the feelings of hatred expressed by so many of you is apalling.

Why? Is hatred, as such, an invalid emotion?

I feel quite sure that if Ayn Rand, who spoke so often of the importance of life, were aware that these people were referencing her works she would be heart broken.
I happen to recall a quote from Ayn Rand about the moral status of civilians under Soviet Russia in the context of a war. Perhaps someone can produce this quote?

Having a great respect for life in no ways falls under the veil of altruism. 

Giving away your money to strangers who, in all likelihood, worship death and unreason, rather smacks of altruism. It doesn't HAVE to be altruistic, I suppose, but I am having trouble seeing how it doesn't right now. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

another way to discriminate and hate.
Is there something wrong with discrimination and hate as such? Perhaps it would help if you defined your terms. What do you mean by the words "discriminate" and "hate?"

To propose that someone not "deserve" to live based on his or hers assumed beliefs is absurd.

That is absurd because you have taken it completely out of context. I could make nearly any statement absurd by taking it out of context. I'm afraid it's too muddled in false premises for me to untangle.

What is a person to use to choose whether a person "deserves to live" or not, if not their beliefs? Having done so, what happens to those who "deserve to live?" Are we under a moral obligation to support them? They "deserve to live," after all!

Let me attempt to clear this up by making a positive statement: I believe that it is the moral obligation of a person who gives away money to know where his money is going and to make sure that it will not serve to further his self-destruction. His self-interest lies in advancing HIS life. Given the choice of investing money for profit, or giving it away, the better choice is profit. Given the choice of giving money to a good friend or a stranger, the better choice is the friend. If the stranger is from an area well known for supporting terrorists, then that certainly doesn't help the stranger's case.

What are your thoughts on all this? How about my point about how altruism destroys all desires for genuine brotherhood and charity? Did you get a good look at what I had posted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delta,

I haven't gotten any of your money yet. Why the long wait? Surely I am a better target for your charity than a random tsunami victim whose values you do not know. If you don't intend to send me money, I would like to know why.

Or, alternatively, you could withdraw your position that it is a good idea to send tsunami aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

drdriveby: "May I remind you that the United States and her allies are at war. This war was started by a cabal of greasy hoodlums who insist al Quar'an is the word of god. Al Qur'an is said, with cogent documentation, to have been inspired if not authored by Mohammed. He, as I stated in another post, was a mass-murderer and child molesting serial rapist."

In reference to the post of drdriveby, for purposes of factual clarification to others following this thread;

-Muslims do believe the Quran is the word of God

-However, most Muslims follow a particular school of thought or 'fiqh' (eg figh-e-hanafi, figh-e-shafii, fiqh-e-hanbali etc). Furthermore, today there are shariah and non-shariah, liberal muslims. The fundamentalists responsible for the events of 911 practiced wahabism, an extreme perversion of the Quran that calls for global subversion to a form of 7th century islam.

-Al Queda literally means 'the base', beyond the training camps in Afghanistan, which no longer exist, it is no more than an idea. My point being that all that is required is the transmission of the call to arms, the jihad and independant cells can (and have) spring up anywhere.

Also I would observe that from the outset the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine were to a degree separate and required independant solutions. The

phrase 'War on Terror' and its blanket use by the Bush administration has given Islamic Fundamentalism an unprecedented level of recognition and appeal with disaffected youth across the globe. The single failure to indentify the roots of fundamentalism at an early stage and dispel it for what it is has given rise to a popular anti-americanism, uniting groups of otherwise diverse interest in a common cause.

---

I would suggest that misleading extremists, driven by such blind hatred, as drdriveby be banned from the forum.

This 'war', if it is that, is a war of ideas - and it cannot be truly won unless its leaders offer something beyond evangelical Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to the post of drdriveby, for purposes of factual clarification to others following this thread;

-Muslims do believe the Quran is the word of God

This 'war', if it is that, is a war of ideas - and it cannot be truly won unless its leaders offer something beyond evangelical Christianity.

Thank you Charles,

I didn't feel like wasting my time again responding to driveby, But then I was no where near as informed on the matters he tried to discuss as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that misleading extremists, driven by such blind hatred, as drdriveby be banned from the forum.

Moderator's comment: To ban someone from ObjectivismOnline means showing that that person has egregiously or repeatedly violated Forum Rules. Please, in your REPORT or in a post in the thread itself, be specific about which Forum Rule you believe has been violated.

Often, demanding that someone making seemingly outrageous statements prove his ideas are objective is sufficient punishment -- and makes a point at the same time. For example, drdriveby has charged Muhammad with mass murder. Is that true or false? The onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

P. S. -- For everyone in this forum, when quoting an earlier post, be sure to include the snapback arrow (see example above) so that your readers can return to the original post, to see the target passage in its full context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acknowledged; I had wanted to set the facts straight without dignifying drdriveby with an answer. But as I have made a formal complaint and see the need for due process I shall concurrently ask drdriveby:

Could you please substanstiate your assertion that this 'war was started by a cabal of greasy hoodlums who insist al Quar'an is the word of god' and that Mohammed was 'a mass-murderer and child molesting serial rapist'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who would hope that one day we have the numbers to truly make a difference in changing the course of this country's politics, I would suggest that you choose your battles carefully. There are egregious examples enough of immoral government spending without choosing to jump up and down and wave your arms over relief given to people affected by a massive tragedy not of their own making. To those we would convince, it makes Objectivism seem like the philosophy of petty self-conceit and disdain for mankind, not the philosophy of rational self-interest and lovers of life.

This whole thing is a stunning, world-wide lesson in what altruism actually involves. Wouldn't it be better to calmly and rationally watch as the long-term consequences of altruism take effect and then use it to point out what is fundamentally wrong with it? The UN Oil for the Enrichment of UN Bureaucrats and International Corruption is a fine example of what I'm talking about. It is a splendid example of the damage done by altruism. That little exercise was one of the direct causes leading to the war in Iraq; the cause and effect is overt, glaring, and ripe for philosophical exploitation. I think that the attempt to relieve the long-term affects of this disaster will be an even greater lesson to be exploited.

The world in general operates on an altruistic ethic, be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or humanist. The ethics of the rational selfishness of Objectivism rests on a philosophical foundation that must be understood if we aren't to be portrayed as petty and hateful. Or laughed at the way leftist nutjobs are laughed at. Those who have no idea why Objectivism finds altruism evil and anti-life won't understand an attitude of disgust towards relief efforts. Politics is an art and must be approached with care and thoughtfulness if one's goal is persuasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acknowledged; I had wanted to set the facts straight without dignifying drdriveby with an answer. But as I have made a formal complaint and see the need for due process I shall concurrently ask drdriveby:

Could you please substanstiate your assertion that this 'war was started by a cabal of greasy hoodlums who insist al Quar'an is the word of god' and that Mohammed was 'a mass-murderer and child molesting serial rapist'?

quote]

My gracious Charles, greetings: Neharkum sa’id wembarak! Am I correct in assuming Kant’s doppelganger is knocking about in your otherwise vacuous skull?

I had just donned my epistemological Hazmat gear in reluctant preparation for a descent into the noisome wonders of Ralph Manheim’s English translation and incidental transliterations of Mein Kampf for a dreaded but seminal future discourse. Thus infelicitously panoplied I inadvertently consulted my electronic epistles among which was a challenge proffered by BuregessLau at your behest.

It appears, my dear Charles, you’ve promulgated empathically desultory excuses for Imperial Islam. Permit me to disabuse you of them.

First: Your specious assertion that the Mohammedan’s arbitrary categorisation of ’fiqh’ is metaphysically, and ergo, derivatively ethically valid as-say the opaquely arbitrary distinction interpolated betwixt Sturmabteilungen (storm trooper to you, Charles) and Schutzstaffeln (’staff guard [i.e. SS]); CAN YOU HEAR ME, Shepardess?)-is dangerously apocryphal. Murder of innocence is criminal whether it’s executed in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, Ceylon, Tieneman Square, federally-financed ’Hollywood’, Islamabad, Jakarta, Chicago’s South Side, Mauritania, Tashkent, or Chechnya.

Second: Your naïve whistling past the grave of ’Palestinian’ imposture veiled in the puerile supposition of ’separate and required independent solutions’ is redolent of Marxist non-thought. Furthermore, if you’re an ’Objectivist‘, surely you’ve quantified more rationally salubrious nostra than ’uniting groups of otherwise diverse interest in a common cause.’ (emphasis added) Whom does a mediocrity like yourself seek to fool? Shepardess perhaps?

Third: Indeed it’s fair that I’m required to ‘…substantiate your assertion that this “war was started by a cabal of greasy hoodlums who insist al Qur’an is the word of allah” (sic) and that Mohammed was “a mass murderer and child molesting serial rapist”?. Well, my noble Charles, you are correct; how about ’ …cabal of oleaginous hoodlums? Bet you feel better already.

Fourth: Condescending to your command that I provide proof of ’Mohammed was a “mass-murderer and child molesting serial rapist”’, I’ve appended a selection of my earlier post having to do with the Left’s Plot to Kill Christmas:

Thus 'traditionalists' in America have a choice: The innocence and good will highlighting the birth of the Capitalistic baby Jesus or the scene alluded to in al-Qur'an (sura 33, verse 25) which commemorates a seminal event in the prolonged birth of Islam during 627 A.D.. The 'Prophet' commanded that a great trench be dug in the marketplace of Medina. 800 unarmed men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe were methodically decapitated and their remains covered over and '...Mahomet returned from the horrid spectacle to solace himself with the charms of Rihana, whose husband and all her male relatives had just perished in the massacre...'* Ooops. In addition to this pleasantry the betrothal of Mohammed to the 6 year old Aisha and her subsequent defloration at the age of 9 is affirmed by enumerable ’Muslim’ sources

Now one knows why there will never be a movie of the life of Mohammed. Who'd want to view such ordure anyway? Somebody stupid enough to pay money to sit in the dark with Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler. Merry Christmas, baby.

*Muir, Sir W. The Life of Muhammad. Edinburgh, 1923. And he got it from Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari, Mohammed's ecclesiastically acknowledged biographers. We got it from Ibn Warraq who is currently in hiding.

Fifth: If you call me an ’extremist’ one more time I shall recommend you to Ayn Rand’s 1964 essay, ‘EXTREMISM,’ Or the Art of Smearing.’

:D They don’t call me drdriveby for nuthin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator Comment: For those who wish to continue posting in this thread (or for that matter in this forum), I draw you attention to this section of the forum rules;

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include sarcastic comments and accusations of irrationality or immorality. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators. Likewise, all posts must add to the discussion rather than merely express agreement or disagreement without explaining the writer's reasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a hard time reading and understanding "drdriveby's" postings. I have the same problem with William F. Buckley. I know what the big words mean alright and I'm no dummy, but they are getting in the way rather than clarifying the issues being discussed.

As Peter Schwartz emphasized in his tapes on writing (available from AynRandBookstore.com), the essence of good writing is CLARITY -- or should be -- if one's purpose is to communicate and convince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gracious Charles, greetings: Neharkum sa’id wembarak! Am I correct in assuming Kant’s doppelganger is knocking about in your otherwise vacuous skull?
Plain insult

First: Your specious assertion that the Mohammedan’s arbitrary categorisation of ’fiqh’ is metaphysically, and ergo, derivatively ethically valid as-say the opaquely arbitrary distinction interpolated betwixt Sturmabteilungen (storm trooper to you, Charles) and Schutzstaffeln (’staff guard [i.e. SS]); CAN YOU HEAR ME, Shepardess?)-is dangerously apocryphal….

I have made no claim that the categorizations that exist in Islamic culture are metaphysically or ethically valid. Analogy: There are Catholics and there are Protestants - neither are metaphysically or ethically valid groups, but there remains a distinction in their respective claims.

….Murder of innocence is criminal whether it’s executed in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, Ceylon, Tieneman Square, federally-financed ’Hollywood’, Islamabad, Jakarta, Chicago’s South Side, Mauritania, Tashkent, or Chechnya.
I do not see how that adds anything to your initial refute or in any way deals with anything I said.

Second: Your naïve whistling past the grave of ’Palestinian’ imposture veiled in the puerile supposition of ’separate and required independent solutions’ is redolent of Marxist non-thought…

Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator, a tyrant governing a comparatively moderate Islamic state with many secular elements. Afghanistan was host to the Taliban - a group of religious fundamentalists advocating the use of violence against the West, haboring terrorist training camps and committing gross human rights abuses amongst its own. The Israel-Palestine Issue is concerned with national sovereignty though each sides culture is entrenched in religion. The tenuous linking of Iraq to Palestine and the wider middle eastern/islamic sphere under the slogan ‘War on Terror’ has witnessed thousands of militants drawn to Iraq to engage the American troops - it is, to use the current military parlance, ‘a terrorist hotbed’ , though as a British Commander informed a Conservative defence policy meeting I attended this week - practically every suicide bomber in Iraq to date has originated from outside Iraq.

Furthermore, if you’re an ’Objectivist‘, surely you’ve quantified more rationally salubrious nostra than ’uniting groups of otherwise diverse interest in a common cause.’ (emphasis added) Whom does a mediocrity like yourself seek to fool? Shepardess perhaps?
Once more, Plain insult.

Fourth: Condescending to your command that I provide proof of ’Mohammed was a “mass-murderer and child molesting serial rapist”’, I’ve appended a selection of my earlier post having to do with the Left’s Plot to Kill Christmas:

Thus 'traditionalists' in America have a choice: The innocence and good will highlighting the birth of the Capitalistic baby Jesus or the scene alluded to in al-Qur'an (sura 33, verse 25) which commemorates a seminal event in the prolonged birth of Islam during 627 A.D.. The 'Prophet' commanded that a great trench be dug in the marketplace of Medina. 800 unarmed men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe were methodically decapitated and their remains covered over and '...Mahomet returned from the horrid spectacle to solace himself with the charms of Rihana, whose husband and all her male relatives had just perished in the massacre...'* Ooops. In addition to this pleasantry the betrothal of Mohammed to the 6 year old Aisha and her subsequent defloration at the age of 9 is affirmed by enumerable ’Muslim’ sources

I took the liberty of checking this up; the methodical execution of the Bani Qureyzah remnants following the siege did occur (only it was the Arab (not Muslim) tribe of Aus under the auspices of Sa’d ibn Mu-adh that was responsible for the execution) .‘the betrothal of Mohammed to the 6 year old Aisha and her subsequent defloration at the age of 9’ is also accurate.

I now live in an area of London populated by Muslims, many of whom are decent and friendly people and I grew up with many Christians who are also decent and friendly people. I study within a group of international students, several of the most dedicated and enthusiastic scientists I know are Singaporean Muslims. They may or may not claim to be as such because of their faith, but the metaphysically invalid ideas, backgrounds and cultures they represent alongside their own personal merits do not mark them for your fascist vision of a nuclear holocaust.

I took a brief look at your website www.drdriveby.com - quote 'moderates are intimidated by government; radicals intimidate government'

The saying 'one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter' comes to mind: I expect to win a battle of ideas, by the merit of my ideas, not by enforcing some dogmatic right wing doctrine down the globes collective throat.

Fifth: If you call me an ’extremist’ one more time I shall recommend you to Ayn Rand’s 1964 essay, ‘EXTREMISM,’ Or the Art of Smearing.’

I shall look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plain insult

I have to agree that it is, but you were entirely asking for it. In case you didn't notice, it was a response to the plain insults that you hurled at him. (albeit, he's a lot more talented at it)

I am inclined to excuse his actions, since they are merely responsive in nature, whereas you initiated the ad hominem attacks.

But the plain point here is that both of you should stop it.

Also, I note that you continued to call him a "fascist" and to insinuate that he desires nuclear holocaust. I would remind you to re-read his posts and to notice that his argument is that such a holocaust is an unfortunate necessity that might occur in the future if we and our government continue to fail to prosecute this war properly.

He has called for a nuclear attack as a move to prevent future conflict by showing that we are morally comitted to defending ourselves and that our enemies cannot guilt us into defeat (and he didn't even do so IN THIS THREAD, at least not directly!). He is not alone in this idea; I would recommend you read the article that Dr. Leonard Peikoff wrote directly after 9/11.

I just don't appreciate it when you come onto this board and think that the insults of "bloodthirsty fascist" are a proper substitute for an argument (when such conduct is clearly against the rules). I have presented my position rationally and if you oppose it, I invite you to give me a rational counter-argument.

And finally, the fact that you are attacking straw men is not helping. Please actually READ my and his posts and do us the dignity of arguing against US and not some phantoms.

(I don't even know Dr. Driveby, but I am apparantly being lumped in with him with these "generalized attacks" which are ALSO against forum rules)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My posts are not generalized attacks: they are addressed to drdriveby.

Inspector: "Also, I note that you continued to call him a "fascist" and to insinuate that he desires nuclear holocaust. I would remind you to re-read his posts and to notice that his argument is that such a holocaust is an unfortunate necessity that might occur in the future if we and our government continue to fail to prosecute this war properly."
I dont think so. You can draw your own conclusions, but:

All from drdriveby:

The thought has crossed my mind that it would be nice if someone dropped a big bomb on Indonesia to finish the job and to eliminate the "need" for MY rights to be violated.'

Unfortunately this pivotal war requires rationally implemented mass death.
:D Have a nice war. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and second of those three quotes were from me. The first was in the context of my showing what altruism does to a person's compassion. The second quote is true, if you examine it closely enough. I even explained it later on.

Your confusion is most likely due to his trouble using the quote feature.

(edited for grammar)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fifth:  If you call me an ’extremist’ one more time I shall recommend you to Ayn Rand’s 1964 essay, ‘EXTREMISM,’  Or the Art of Smearing.’                  

"'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing" appears in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

An excerpt from that essay appears under "Anti-Concepts," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 23-24, with the "'Extremism'..." excerpt appearing on p. 24.

Ayn Rand identified "extremism" -- a term used by leftists at the time, as they do now -- as being a form of invalid concept, specifically an anti-concept. What is that? "An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept" (p. 23, ARL). The replacement comes from using the anti-concept as an idea "defined" by nonessentials, Ayn Rand notes.

For example, I would suggest that "extremism," as I have heard the term used, refers vaguely (and thus insidiously) to: willingness to use violence against peaceful people, being wild-eyed (mental illness), and uncaring about the allegedly destructive effects of applying radical ideas to society.

The idea it is convering up, as used by the leftists I have heard, is acting on principle. Someone who acts on principle applies that principle consistently, not pragmatically. Islamofascists are acting on principle when they threaten Western Civilization. Objectivists are acting on principle when they advocate the total destruction of active Islamofascists and all those who support them. Both are "extremists."

Other example anti-concepts include: "isolationism," "simplistic," and "duty." A frequent use of anti-concepts is in arguments from intimidation. (ARL, pp. 23-24)

When those I am debating use the term "extremist" against me, I take one of two steps:

(1) Ask them for an essentialized definition (which they can't do).

(2) Say, "Thank you, I am consistent in applying my principles to reality."

The first step is dialectical; the second is rhetorical. There is no other way to deal with an invalid concept.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a hard time reading and understanding "drdriveby's" postings.  I have the same problem with William F. Buckley. I know what the big words mean alright and I'm no dummy, but they are getting in the way rather than clarifying the issues being discussed.

As Peter Schwartz emphasized in his tapes on writing (available from AynRandBookstore.com), the essence of good writing is CLARITY -- or should be -- if one's purpose is to communicate and convince.

Amen.

I don't understand the purpose of drdriveby's writing style. It makes his posts difficult to read and less clear than they could be otherwise.

drdriveby, what's the point of all the unusual terminology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Inspector and drdriveby (and others?) have taken this thread from a discussion of the tsunami and the government relief efforts to a discussion of the war, I would like to address what has been said about it.

I'm not able to use the quote functions, so please bear with me. If I do not state the positions I'm answering correctly, understand that it isn't deliberate. I am summerizing, stating my understanding of what I read. I'll use the passive voice so that I don't put words in someone's mouth. 'Kay?

It has been said that we ought to drop a nuke on Indonesia to "finish the job" that the tsunami started. The reason? Indonesia is a predominently Muslim country and, thus, the enemy.

Indonesia is fighting a war against their own internal brand of fundamentalist Islam, as is every other country in the region. In their last election, these fundamentalists were defeated by a large majority. I grant that America has enemies within the population, just as she does in virtually every other country. I'll also concede that even though the government isn't an Islamist one, it isn't a friend. But it isn't an enemy, either, and has cooperated with the US in the WOT (to what degree, and with what efficacy, I don't pretend to know).

Partly because of these internal problems, the government of Indonesia has been less than thankful for American help. As soon they caught their breath, we were asked to move our task forces into international waters, and were given a deadline when to leave. But the government isn't the people, and there is now a large segment of the population that knows exactly who did what in the crisis, and just how fast we did it. Not to be a polyanna, but we can at least hope that the terrorists lost some potential recruits. If it causes someone to think again so that they turn in the terrorist cell they know about, so much the better. These are potential positives. As to the negatives, well...how are we worse off (except financially)?

Given this context, how does one justify advocating an attack on a country that has just suffered a devastating loss of life to a natural disaster, in order to "finish the job?" And further, how does one justify the slaughter of innocents in the hopes that we'll get a few of the enemy?

This isn't the same moral question as that of the regretable loss of innocent life when in battle.

Doing such a thing isn't even justified under any rule of preemption. It would be a blatant attack--an initiation of force--on a country that has not, as a political entity, attacked, or even threatened us. The fact that we have enemies who live and operate within the country doesn't offer justification, either; that is true of Britain. Do we nuke London because Richard Reid sits in an American prison cell (which is more justification than we have for Indonesia)?

It isn't only that "finishing the job," in this context, is such an appallingly malevolent thing to consider (much less say out loud). It is that the mass slaughter of human beings was suggested so utterly thoughtlessly on every level, from the stated context to the philosophical justification.

Edited by oldsalt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If extremism is a 'rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept' (p. 23, ARL) because it is an emotionally slanted and 'vague/insidious' way of describing 'someone who acts on principle [and] applies that principle consistently' (BurgessLau) then surely fundamentalism is to.

EDITED: to add 'and radical too...

The percentage of Muslims who are fundamentalists is comparitively few, and even then they are only fundamentally applying an interpretation of the Quaran.

When I accuse drdriveby of being an extremist I accuse him of a far too literal application of Objectivist ideology, and at that his own interpretation of it; his logic appears to be on the level of -Islam is an altruistic and thus harmful threat- ergo -destroy it with whatever force is necessary-.

A moderate approach would acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are just as misguided as the vast majority of Christians and need setting straight; not wiping out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...