Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Proper Means of Communication

Rate this topic


DonAthos

Recommended Posts

Devil's Advocate, I agree, it is a bit off topic...

 

After reading your response to Anuj, I suspect we are drawing similar conclusions based on recent events.  My response to the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo would have been, "Je suis Dieu - Préparez-vous à être jugé" (pardon my french)

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of following your lead:  Suppose Ayn Rand, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche and Aristotle were rudely satirized as in post #51.  Would the POV of the poster be effectively communicated

Yes. Obviously. That's why they'd be getting banned (if the cartoon was about Ayn Rand): because of how clear and unmistakable their stance on the subject of this forum is. People who have total disdain and disinterest for Ayn Rand obviously have no place on a forum dedicated to discussing her work.

Doesn't mean I personally wouldn't appreciate their honesty and ability to express their views. It's a rare quality these days.

And, most importantly, no one in their right mind would feel offended, let alone humiliated. (I doubt Ayn Rand's actual friends, the only ones with any cause to be offended by being presented with something like that, read this forum.)

and if so would it be allowed to stand in this forum as a rebuttal to post #51

Did you read my post? Did it even mention Ayn Rand? Why would saying anything about Ayn Rand, or Nietzsche, or Kant, be a rebuttal to my post? What are you talking about? Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. Though I've also known some people to come with "guns blazing," as soon as they understand that someone disagrees with their point of view on a given issue. Apparently taking the position that "anyone who disagrees with me must be a" fill-in-the-blank.

Apparently. But you haven't actually verified this to be the case, right? Maybe you're just looking at a biased sample...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Obviously. That's why they'd be getting banned (if the cartoon was about Ayn Rand): because of how clear and unmistakable their stance on the subject of this forum is. People who have total disdain and disinterest for Ayn Rand obviously have no place on a forum dedicated to discussing her work.

...

 

Interesting... Initially (in post @11) you stated:

 

Good communication is powerful. That's all there is to it. As long as your message has power (meaning that it grabs people's attention and delivers the message in unanbiguous terms), that is the "proper" means of communicating something. The more provocative the words, the more attention you get, the more definitive and unambiguous, the less likely it is that it is misunderstood.

...

 

So what premise are you now using to assert that good and powerful communication ought to be banned in a public forum?

 

1) I have your attention, which was my goal.

 

2) My example is "definitive and unambiguous"; you certainly got the message.

 

3) Steps 1 & 2 apparently make it a "proper means of communicating something".

 

...

Did you read my post? Did it even mention Ayn Rand? Why would saying anything about Ayn Rand, or Nietzsche, or Kant, be a rebuttal to my post? What are you talking about?

 

 

Of course I did.  Why else would I be calling you on it?

 

Your example communicates "Religion is s**t".  It playes to an audience that includes those who pop in to see what Objectivism is all about.  It is, after all, a public forum.  It's likely that those who aren't atheist would be offended by such a display, and seeing it remain and be defended, would consider a proper rebuttal to be, "Philosophy is s**t".  In another neighborhood a similar rebuttal might be, "Your motha", which in this case clearly points back again to Ayn Rand, the motha of Objectivism.

 

How are you not getting that?

 

If your goal is to exclude persons of faith from exposure to Objectivism then you're making some progress.  But I suggest that was never Ayn Rand's goal, who appreciated religion as an early form of philosophy, who admired the efforts of Thomas Aquinas (one of the 3 As) to return philosohy to its Aristotelian roots, and who invited everyone to study all philosophies, being confident that would lead them towards Objectivism.  I don't recall her using your standard of vulgarity to promote that goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As further evidence that I not only read your post, but am rejecting every point you made...

 

...

Publishing this photo hasn't resulted in any gunfire, bombing, battles or war whatsoever. And it never will. The people who's deities aren't claiming to have been humiliated, in fact they probably appreciate the message of the cartoon (which is that their religions have become so tolerant and peaceful that we are comfortable speaking freely about them without any fear of reprisal whatsoever).

So why, in the face of evidence to the contrary, do you insist that insulting people's deities COULD ONLY POSSIBLY result in violence?

 

1) "Publishing this photo hasn't resulted in any gunfire, bombing, battles or war whatsoever. And it never will."

 

Try persuading the folks at Charlie Hebdo of the benign nature of free speech; the survivors...

 

2) "The people who's deities aren't claiming to have been humiliated, in fact they probably appreciate the message of the cartoon (which is that their religions have become so tolerant and peaceful that we are comfortable speaking freely about them without any fear of reprisal whatsoever)."

 

First off, the credibility of an atheist speaking for persons of faith is dubious, particularly when asserting that they will "appreciate" having their values trashed by someone who doesn't understand them.

 

Secondly, if there are those of faith who are so tolerant and peaceful that they are comfortable having you speaking freely about them without any fear of reprisal whatsoever, that is something they have over you who would throw them out of this forum because: "People who have total disdain and disinterest for Ayn Rand obviously have no place on a (public) forum dedicated to discussing her work."

 

Interesting isn't it, how free speech works to your disadvantage when it's used to communicate something you aren't comfortable hearing.  How is it that speech becomes the first freedom rejected in an Objectivist forum??

 

A rational troll, is still a troll, and I respectfully ask you to reconsider your premises in this matter.  While it's true that no one in this forum will die resulting from gunfire or bombing being transmitted over the internet, words and images have meaning and this is precisely the arena where philosophical battles and wars are waged.

 

--

Note:  For clarity, I am intentionally pushing the envelope of what I consider "proper" communication with Nicky to check his premise.  He's a big boy and can handle it, and has thumped me many times in return.  I agree with him on many issues, and disagree on others, this one being an example of such disagreement.  I sincerely hope both of us will benefit from this "definitive and unambiguous" exchange of ideas.

 

One thing is certain, he is the Objectivist here and I am the interloper.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that speech becomes the first freedom rejected in an Objectivist forum??

One would have hoped that after hanging out in an Objectivist forum for years, you'd appreciate that this is a straw-man when it comes to freedom of speech. Do you seriously think any Objectivist would say that Charlie Hebdo has a right to have its cartoons published in any publication of its choosing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting... Initially (in post @11) you stated:

 

 

 

So what premise are you now using to assert that good and powerful communication ought to be banned in a public forum?

 

 

 

This is a private forum open to the public. Also, just because a method is good and powerful at communicating a message does not mean that the message is acceptable in every context. A dirty Ayn Rand cartoon like the religious one posted earlier will convey its message clearly but such a message has no place on this private forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a private forum open to the public. Also, just because a method is good and powerful at communicating a message does not mean that the message is acceptable in every context. A dirty Ayn Rand cartoon like the religious one posted earlier will convey its message clearly but such a message has no place on this private forum.

 

What is this private/public forum of which you speak? I know not.

 

One would have hoped that after hanging out in an Objectivist forum for years, you'd appreciate that this is a straw-man when it comes to freedom of speech. Do you seriously think any Objectivist would say that Charlie Hebdo has a right to have its cartoons published in any publication of its choosing? 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at since Charlie Hebdo publishes its own material; it certainly doesn't force its material on other publications.  In the context of the example Nicky presented (which remains) and the one I proposed (by description to be equally vulgar), both were accepted in this forum voluntarily with the understanding that either or both could be removed by administration at any time for any reason.

 

I may be misunderstanding you (and please correct me if I am), but you seem to be reminding me that this forum has a right to refuse service, is that it?  Having been thrown out of THE FORUM, I well understand that particular right.  This is important to me softwareNerd, so tell me true;  does the supremacy of reason ultimately depend on a partisan right to censure free speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be misunderstanding you (and please correct me if I am), but you seem to be reminding me that this forum has a right to refuse service, is that it?  Having been thrown out of THE FORUM, I well understand that particular right.  This is important to me softwareNerd, so tell me true;  does the supremacy of reason ultimately depend on a partisan right to censure free speech?

The supremacy of reason recognizes when unrestrained speech fails to uphold reason. This domain is private property, paid for and maintained by the owner, as I understand it. (Contributions are voluntary and welcome, as I understand it. Yet even contributors are not granted free reign.)

 

As to forbidding the censuring of free speech, there is only one agency to which this applies; i.e.,  Government. Free speech does not mean that a microphone is to be provided at the radio station's expense, or that newspaper space is to be allocated at the paper's expense. You are free to write a book, but not to demand that it be published. Government, as the sole agency of retaliatory force, is not free to exercise that force when it comes to speech, unless it can be shown objectively that such speech violates another's individual rights.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to ask a few general questions I think are central to Don Anthos' searching OP before responding to particular exchanges.

 

What is the principle behind the notion that "tact" is a virtue?

 

Why should a rationally self interested person be concerned with avoiding consequences that arise from the irrationality of others rather than living according to their own values-standards and desires?

 

If one can persuade another by suffering ridicule and unwarranted accusation about their motives, but based on honest error, should they? Why? What is the principle behind such a tact?

 

What responsibilities does a rational egoist place on those whom agree to discourse such that when these are not met one ought to desist?  

 

When would ridicule be a rational means of achieving ones values?

 

Given that self esteem is central to the achievement of the objectivist virtues, and those without it usually attack those with it, how does a self respecting, virtuous egoist deal with such a person without sacrificing himself to injustice?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anuj said: 

You ask 'what' judgement do you propose. Before asking that question you should ask "why should you propose a judgement ?". In this case 'why' is the precursor to 'what'. You should put them on trail (judge) if there actions are affecting you, if not just let them be and you live your own life. 

 

No, I "should" ask the questions that satisfy the conditions set by my own purposes in discourse. I want to know what your evaluation is of someone who is offended by righteous judgment of their character? Your response above does reveal your standards clearly though. What do you think of the Oist position that one morally must at least express disagreement in public settings with premises that are evil?

 

Anuj said:

 

There are subsets of religious people. One who are extremists/terrorists and two those who are not. If the actions of the terrorists are affecting you, find them out and judge them, know what their reasons are, and if deemed as a threat, terminate them. Their is a distinction here, to judge and to humiliate are two different words. And Hebdo was not judging, it was humiliating them as a whole, both the terrorists and the irrational innocents. In that process, 1) they risk making more enemies 2) they lost their own staff and few innocent civilians. Nothing changed for the terrorists! is there anything that one gains out of humiliation ? Well.. apart from making money as Hebdo did.

 

Rationally Judging is not bad but Humiliating is. 

 

You are wrong in saying that Ayn Rand made money out of Kant. Rand made money out of her books, out of her philosophy - Objectivism. Is Objectivism all about Kant being evil ? Nevertheless, Rand was too quick to brand anything as evil that does not fit into her line of thinking. Did Kant do enough to be termed as evil ? He was just a Philosopher. He did not force anybody to follow his philosophy. You can call him irrational at the most but evil ? To answer your question- No, I don't think rand was immoral leech, but neither was Kant evil

 

You obviously don't agree with Fact and Value or basic tenets of Objectivism then. What do you think is the criteria for evil?

 

Should a bully be humiliated and ridiculed? If a person knows what to say to a person who is bullying them that will persuade them away from beating them again via argument should they do so instead of beating the f**k out of them and then humiliating them whenever possible? Why would an egoist choose to persuade this bully instead of treating them as the savage they chose to be? (the definition of justice) Likewise, If an altruist mystic would listen to an argument about the irrationality of the concept of a supernatural being and likely be persuaded if you didn't mention the evil nature of religion and simply focused on the irrationality, should you avoid calling religion evil?

 

 

Anuj said:

 

Can you clarify how is this equivocation ? Definition of the term leech does not include the initiation of force. Leech as a verb means plainly to habitually exploit or rely on other. Hebdo earns money at expense of religious groups by humiliating (not judging !) them. Can you refute this ?

Refute what? How can a muslim be humiliated by a cartoon about someone who is not them? It doesn't follow. I am not humiliated by the many anti Rand articles etc. You cannot be humiliated by something that is not true of you or even about you personally. Offense and humiliation are not the same thing..

 

For Oism a concept is not synonymous with its definition, dictionary or not... It is context dropping to divorce the concept from the initiation of force given its generative context of differentiation. Why should a Hebdo care about religious followers evaluation of his work? If one lived in a neighborhood where violent thugs roam periodically, should an egoist stay inside to avoid the thugs, or live his life and simply be aware of and prepared for potential threats while living according to his values? Why live on their terms?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

When would ridicule be a rational means of achieving ones values?

 

 

 

 

To answer this very necessary question, let's first identify "ones values." The value, in this case, is the liberation of an idea from its suppression, censorship, or any other denial by social or government authority. When the idea is valuable to an individual, or group of individuals, it is their natural right to openly express the idea without risk of persecution. In the thousands of years of human history, there are many such ideas deemed "too dangerous to ignore." Many of these ideas, held by a minority, were eventually accepted as truth, or may have served as a step toward the greater truth. But the first messenger was killed for delivering the truth. And the other messengers of his time fell silent.

 

The list of men and women who suffered for their convictions is unnecessary in this post. I'm sure every Objectivist can offer up his/her own favorite example. But not all of the victims of oppressive majorities had the advantage of a guarantee of free speech. Ridicule is a moral and rational option in the case that all other options of rational argument have failed to yield the value of liberating an idea.

 

If a man is a member a racial minority, and after publishing and publicly speaking a rational argument that the majority race refuses to hear, and to act on the logic of his argument, he is within his rights to lash out in anger, or he may use the more effective tool of argument, ridicule.

 

If a family is forced to pay taxes to educate children that God wants to send naughty children to eternal agony in pits of fire, while some guy with a pitchfork jabs them in the ass, the parents have a moral obligation to object. But if the majority of taxpayers agree that this is the proper lesson plan for their children, it's time to start drawing the offensive cartoons. Normally, it gets their attention and educates at the same time.

 

If society is in the majority opinion that all religions are equal, even if an occasional extremist commits an atrocity in the name of his religion. "We should judge that religion to be as valid and sane as any religion." Such a society would be inclined to condemn or even censor the ridicule of that violence-specific creed, as they would be inclined to condemn any form of ridicule on people of faith. But when the rational arguments have been exhausted, and the violence continues, let the free people have a little fun. After all, it can't hurt any one. This is, unless murderous vendetta is your idea of fun.

 

Sometimes the popularly accepted notion is so popular that it becomes a sacred cow. As distasteful as the process of slaughtering such cows may be, if the cow oppresses even the ultimate minority of one, and after rational arguments have failed, it's rational and moral time to reach for the lampoon.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The examples I use in the above post were hastily constructed. Nonetheless, they reflect some of the frustrations rational people confront, or may be hypothetically constructed in casual debate. But to be sure, ridicule can be used to good effect in making a point in debates over popular culture and politics, such as the rather harmless editorial cartoons that appear in most newspapers. When the subject of ridicule can't respond without using violence, what does that say about the subject? Would anyone be offended if they saw a vulgar depiction of Oden? Kukulkan? Zeus? Adding a few more gods to the resting home of outdated deities would be proper solution by my standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your example communicates "Religion is s**t".  It playes to an audience that includes those who pop in to see what Objectivism is all about.  It is, after all, a public forum.  It's likely that those who aren't atheist would be offended by such a display, and seeing it remain and be defended, would consider a proper rebuttal to be, "Philosophy is s**t".

1. Did you just say "philosophy is shit" is a proper rebuttal to "religion is shit"? That's it, it's official. You know nothing about the rules of logic. I mean nothing. Not even the vaguest, most basic clue about what logic might be. Which explains the quality of your posts.

A proper rebuttal to the statement "religion is shit" would be some evidence that it's not. Good luck with that.

2. "Religion is shit" is clearly not the message of that cartoon, the message of that cartoon is "the practitioners of Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism are more tolerant and civilized than some Muslims".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The supremacy of reason recognizes when unrestrained speech fails to uphold reason. This domain is private property, paid for and maintained by the owner, as I understand it. (Contributions are voluntary and welcome, as I understand it. Yet even contributors are not granted free reign.)

 

As to forbidding the censuring of free speech, there is only one agency to which this applies; i.e.,  Government. Free speech does not mean that a microphone is to be provided at the radio station's expense, or that newspaper space is to be allocated at the paper's expense. You are free to write a book, but not to demand that it be published. Government, as the sole agency of retaliatory force, is not free to exercise that force when it comes to speech, unless it can be shown objectively that such speech violates another's individual rights.

I wish you didn't take the time to write this explanation. The fact that people here are willing and eager to explain this to someone who's been around for years and has failed to pick up even this much, instead of just running him out of town, is one of the main things that takes away from the quality of the conversations here.

If someone, after years of being here and having these debates, still refuses to acknowledge this basic distinction is accepted (and calling them out on it isn't accepted, as I'm sure one of the mods will either edit or just delete my post), then who isn't accepted? What level is the lowest accepted level of discourse here? Is there one?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your example communicates "Religion is s**t".  It playes to an audience that includes those who pop in to see what Objectivism is all about.  It is, after all, a public forum.  It's likely that those who aren't atheist would be offended by such a display, and seeing it remain and be defended, would consider a proper rebuttal to be, "Philosophy is s**t".  In another neighborhood a similar rebuttal might be, "Your motha", which in this case clearly points back again to Ayn Rand, the motha of Objectivism.

 

How are you not getting that?

 

  1. DA's reply was not a rebuttal to 'religion is shit'. His reply was about the adverse effects of having a pornographic religious crap on this site. Interesting. Don't you see the difference ?
  2. If you are needing to explain the details about the cartoon, then it was not quite "definitive and unambiguous" so to speak. And therefore, just based on your own premises, the cartoon fails at being a "proper means of communicating something".   
Edited by Anuj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the principle behind the notion that "tact" is a virtue?

In my experience, you are much more learned in Objectivist terminology than I, and based on this initial question I fear I may have misspoken; if I ever referred to "tact" specifically as being a "virtue" (I don't know whether I have or not), then I might not have meant virtue in the sense that Rand did when she described "productiveness" or "honesty." Allow me to describe what I believe as best I can, and if you think I'm still essentially asserting that "tact is a virtue," we can proceed from there:

I do not believe that tact is necessarily good in every situation. However there are situations where tact may be valuable. If one engages in some conversation for the purpose of persuasion, for instance, then I believe tact serves that end. I am speaking generally, even so. Is it possible that some individual might respond even better to being insulted? I suppose it is, and if one has evidence that one is in such a situation, then one should alter one's approach accordingly -- the better to serve his ends.

For example, suppose I had led off this response to you with something like, "Jesus Christ, is this really so hard for you to understand?! You need to have me explain this to you?" Now, what would I be conveying with that kind of rhetoric/speech? Some amount of my own frustration, no doubt, and perhaps my evaluation of your intelligence... but to what end? (And to be very clear, this is just an example for the sake of discussion; I don't feel any particular frustration and I certainly consider you to be intelligent.) If my purpose here is to convince you of some truth I have (or in this case, clarify my thinking on this subject), would it assist me? Would I be clearing the way for you to understand me, insofar as I am able, or making it more difficult? Would you be more interested in continuing our dialogue, or less? Maybe it would make no difference to you -- that's possible -- but I think that there are many people for whom that kind of approach would be destructive (vis a vis persuasion, or other positive ends realizable through conversation, which we could also examine). I think that this is typically true, and I think that there are understandable reasons why this is true. Thus if I had the choice as to whether to include or exclude such rhetoric (and I believe I do have such a choice), I would opt against it, even in those cases where I am genuinely frustrated or have developed some negative view of your intellectual ability.

Is there a point where, having abandoned all hope of persuading you, or explaining myself, or etc., where I can safely damn you to hell as some unthinking blob? Perhaps. But we must acknowledge that for what it is, and so long as we wish to persuade, I argue we should avoid it.

 

Why should a rationally self interested person be concerned with avoiding consequences that arise from the irrationality of others rather than living according to their own values-standards and desires?

I think that such a person should live according to his own values. However, in the pursuit of a value, one may have to take into account the fact that irrational people do exist, and adjust one's tactics accordingly -- the better to achieve his values.

I do not lock my door at night for its own sake; it is strictly to "avoid consequences that arise from the irrationality of others," but more importantly it is in service of all of those values which depend on me living through the night in safety. I believe it is in my interest to do so. Do you concur?

 

If one can persuade another by suffering ridicule and unwarranted accusation about their motives, but based on honest error, should they? Why? What is the principle behind such a tact?

My own threshold for "suffering ridicule and unwarranted accusation" is very low. Perhaps too low. But if I judged that the fault might be a matter of honest error, and if the object of discussion were important enough (or if my partner in discussion were more generally a value to me), I might be willing to suffer through temporarily for the sake of rectifying the issue, and putting the conversation on a better and more productive track.

In such a case, instead of "fighting fire with fire," returning ridicule for ridicule, it would probably be best to address myself towards what I believe to be the source of confusion/error.

 

What responsibilities does a rational egoist place on those whom agree to discourse such that when these are not met one ought to desist?

In general terms, I think that this is what I seek to explore (among other associated issues). I think that discourse is, itself, a subject worth study, and I believe that some means and methods of discourse are bound to be better than others.

When should one desist from discourse? I don't know that I have the answer yet, but I believe that some of the concepts discussed earlier (respect; sincerity; intellectual honesty) are keys to this question. I think that some modes of discussion serve to convey respect, sincerity, and intellectual honesty, and some serve to convey their opposite. I would like to have conversations characterized by those three things, and I do not want to have conversations which lack them.

 

When would ridicule be a rational means of achieving ones values?

The specifics are yet to be determined, but I think that the answer must be "when it is judged the best means of achieving one's values."

I think that there are values to be gained through certain forms of ridicule, as satire -- for instance, entertainment. Yet I am not convinced that ridicule is a viable means for persuasion. I think that it typically works contrary to persuasion, which might be an important aspect to consider in several real world applications, where to ridicule might involve a sacrifice (when what is "gained" through entertainment is overshadowed by what is lost).

 

Given that self esteem is central to the achievement of the objectivist virtues, and those without it usually attack those with it, how does a self respecting, virtuous egoist deal with such a person without sacrificing himself to injustice?

In this case, by starting a thread in the interest of illuminating these kinds of issues, getting people to be more thoughtful about how they deal with one another, and perhaps changing the culture so that conversations deal more with the ideas we discuss, rather than our evaluations of one another, even -- or especially -- in disagreement.

Otherwise, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Religion is shit" is clearly not the message of that cartoon, the message of that cartoon is "the practitioners of Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism are more tolerant and civilized than some Muslims." ~ Nicky, post #90

 

"... I don't know if the cartoon in #51 is from Hebdo, but I don't see a message over and above 'religion is crap' or 'all gods are equally idiotic' or something like that..." ~ softwareNerd, post #64

"... Your example communicates "Religion is s**t"..." ~ myself, post #80
 

"... The more provocative the words, the more attention you get, the more definitive and unambiguous, the less likely it is that it is misunderstood." ~ Nicky, post #11 (busted)
 

I wish you didn't take the time to write this explanation. The fact that people here are willing and eager to explain this to someone who's been around for years and has failed to pick up even this much, instead of just running him out of town, is one of the main things that takes away from the quality of the conversations here.

If someone, after years of being here and having these debates, still refuses to acknowledge this basic distinction is accepted (and calling them out on it isn't accepted, as I'm sure one of the mods will either edit or just delete my post), then who isn't accepted? What level is the lowest accepted level of discourse here? Is there one?

 

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

 

"... Doesn't mean I personally wouldn't appreciate their honesty and ability to express their views. It's a rare quality these days.  And, most importantly, no one in their right mind would feel offended, let alone humiliated... " ~ Nicky, post #78 (busted)

 

 

The supremacy of reason recognizes when unrestrained speech fails to uphold reason. This domain is private property, paid for and maintained by the owner, as I understand it. (Contributions are voluntary and welcome, as I understand it. Yet even contributors are not granted free reign.)

 

As to forbidding the censuring of free speech, there is only one agency to which this applies; i.e.,  Government. Free speech does not mean that a microphone is to be provided at the radio station's expense, or that newspaper space is to be allocated at the paper's expense. You are free to write a book, but not to demand that it be published. Government, as the sole agency of retaliatory force, is not free to exercise that force when it comes to speech, unless it can be shown objectively that such speech violates another's individual rights.

 

As I commented to softwareNerd in post #84, I understand the right of a property owner not to be forced to accept or broadcast the views of interlopers.  Guests don't own the premises, and yes it is the owner's right (and yours as an agent of the owner) to act on Nicky's request to have me removed.  Your freedom to preserve the integrity of your house hasn't been challenged by me.  My question to softwareNerd, as yet unresponded to, was:  does the supremacy of reason ultimately depend on a partisan right to censure free speech?

 

If, as you suggest, the ultimate remedy for "unrestrained speech" is censure by the governing body of this forum, how does that not undermine the supremacy of reason to stand on its own as the truth in any forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as you suggest, the ultimate remedy for "unrestrained speech" is censure by the governing body of this forum, how does that not undermine the supremacy of reason to stand on its own as the truth in any forum?

What is your point? Do you think OO.com advocates hiding the "real" truth from its readers? If not, could you not think of a single other reason why we might ultimately "censure" some particular kinds of posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a vastly different context between human interactions between a place like here, among a few individuals, and mass-communicated political speech ala Hebdo. The same action has a vastly different meaning in the respective contexts.

 

A publication like Hebdo gathered an audience based on its shock value to a curious audience. I daresay that their appeal is somewhat parallel to that of a car race, where people watch because of the crashes (the crashes in this case being terrorists coming to kill them). It had nothing to do with persuading anybody of anything. That was not their goal.

 

In the social-political context, persuasion absolutely should be your goal. That is, if your goal is to make the world safer...

Edited by CrowEpistemologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the social-political context, persuasion absolutely should be your goal. That is, if your goal is to make the world safer...

Really, the goal is just to live how you want. You may just be wasting your life counting on the persuasion of others. You can try, but there's no sense in living miserably because other people refuse to think differently. If people want to go around harming others based on false beliefs, that's why we keep bigger and smarter guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a vastly different context between human interactions between a place like here, among a few individuals, and mass-communicated political speech ala Hebdo. The same action has a vastly different meaning in the respective contexts.

 

A publication like Hebdo gathered an audience based on its shock value to a curious audience. I daresay that their appeal is somewhat parallel to that of a car race, where people watch because of the crashes (the crashes in this case being terrorists coming to kill them). It had nothing to do with persuading anybody of anything. That was not their goal.

 

In the social-political context, persuasion absolutely should be your goal. That is, if your goal is to make the world safer...

That'd be true if the target is a persuadable audience. For the most part, communication is about talking to persuadable audiences. On this forum, communication is generally for persuasion or describing an idea. If the audience isn't persuadable or seen as a waste of time, the speaker isn't going to manage anything without basic principles of communication.

 

In a socio-political context, communication WITHOUT persuasion is really a way to either 1) point out a bizarre or absurd argument, or 2) call attention to a real problem that is too easily ignored. Or in some circumstances, getting a kick out of being a bully, a la Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher - shock that is pretty empty. There isn't an aim for persuasion needed always, but it's not merely shock, either. It is shocking, because, for example, radical Islam is clearly too easily ignored and the target is irrational, angry, and unpersuadable..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a vastly different context between human interactions between a place like here, among a few

In the social-political context, persuasion absolutely should be your goal. That is, if your goal is to make the world safer...

So, in the context of this discussion, if your goal is to make the world safer from attacks from Islamic terrorists, how would you persuade the jihadis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

 

"... Doesn't mean I personally wouldn't appreciate their honesty and ability to express their views. It's a rare quality these days.  And, most importantly, no one in their right mind would feel offended, let alone humiliated... " ~ Nicky, post #78 (busted)

Playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate ignores the purpose it is used for.

 

I came here with an understanding of Objectivism that I basically "memorized" from reading the literature, listening to a radio show host that had a very good working knowledge of it. After I got here, most of my replies consisted of looking up the applicable passage to cite. In addition, I began looking for more information to supplement my understanding. Eventually I came across Objectivism Thru Induction. Peikoff described me to a tee in the opening of that presentation.

 

Elsewhere, he speaks of presenting the same material over and over. As an instructor, that is one particular aspect of what he does. Each class of new students gets essentially the same program.

 

Learning the questions that explanations can bring up can fine tune an explanation. In this sense, someone taking up the role of a devil's advocate can be beneficial. Peikoff takes the role of devil's advocate in his Objective Communication course at one point. After the role play, he took the time to explain where the other participant could have done better.

 

Does this describe the role you're aspiring to ascend to here?

Edited by dream_weaver
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...