The Proper Means of Communication

[Nicky]

Selfishness basically means to take care of yourself, not others, just yourself.

No, it doesn't.

Again.. What is your objective by drawing cartoons that humiliate others?

What's the significance of that "again"? It makes it seem like I ignored your point that those cartoons humiliate others, and you need to reiterate to draw my attention to it.

But I didn't ignore it. I addressed it. My whole post, which you're quoting, is me addressing this exact claim. Those cartoons don't humiliate anyone. They don't feature any real person, just a fictitious god and his fictitious pig.

And, in return, you should've addressed what I wrote. Instead, you're just repeating yourself aimlessly.

Drawing cartoons of despicable taste stands only to insult them and could only possibly result in gunfire and bombing and battles and wars.

In the other thread, SoftwareNerd presented you with an equally dirty cartoon about the deities of the other major world religions. I know you saw it, because you even demanded that he take it down, but here's a reminder anyway:

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?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Nicky

[DonAthos]

I think it's possible to get yourself to respond differently than thought-fogging anger, to a given situation.

This may be true.

 

Concerning your focus on a productive conversation between individuals, I think it's worth mentioning that responding here on OO.com isn't always for the benefit of the person to whom you're addressing. A member may want to just work out the ideas himself, or maybe he wants to respond for the benefit of a general audience who will read the thread in its entirety at a later date. Maybe he hopes to illicit better responses from more knowledgable users. Etc.

It's certainly true that a person's motives for engaging in discussion here (as elsewhere) may be multifaceted. One potential motive that you didn't mention, but I believe that there are also some people who just enjoy getting a rise out of others, or who argue for the sake of sport, and don't mind distorting truth or insulting or directing their argument to the posters (as opposed to the ideas), if they think it scores them "points." While you and I may care about sincerity and respect, surely not everybody does. It's a wide world and there are many types of people out there. Many types of people here.

But I do believe that the skills of tact/diplomacy, or even basic politeness, are beneficial for a range of conversational interests, including several that you mention. Or at the very least, I don't think that civility detracts from them. They do perhaps limit the range of endeavors for some, however, depending on their motive.

That said, I continue to believe that those who are interested in these "productive discussions," including using conversation to help one's self (and others) come to the truth of (sometimes difficult) matters, and to better the world through persuasion, are best served by considering these issues and trying to engage one another with tact.

 

Also, understanding how to respond tactfully on the internet is sometimes delayed at best (ie. harder to discover the type of person you're talking to), or even impossible. Maybe a member just doesn't care to make so many blind guesses about the disposition of the person to whom he's responding.

I agree -- it can be difficult to know the character of the people with whom you converse. And whatever else is true about it, "being diplomatic" is a skill set, and even those who are earnest in trying to remain tactful will not always succeed. Despite best efforts, not every conversation will be productive. But if it's the case that there are certain ways of communicating which are more effective than others, it may be in people's interest to learn those ways and attempt to make use of them, insofar as they are able.

This seems to be the way of the world: many pursuits are difficult, but worthwhile for those who are interested in their benefits, and who stand to profit by them.

 

And since we know that you're easy to anger, we might keep that in mind before posting a reply that might be construed by you as insulting.

Oh, people should respond to me as they see fit! I don't argue for tact because I don't want my feelings to be hurt -- I can take care of myself -- though my personal experiences certainly have helped me to shape and inform my views, which is why I share them. I think that people who otherwise wouldn't care about how they present their views or how they interact with others (so long as they're "on the right side" of a given argument), or those who intentionally provoke, need to understand why I believe some approaches are more effective than others, and that does include the observation that yes, when provoked, some people get angry. And this outcome does not often make for a fruitful conversation. N'est-ce pas?

But I argue for tact because I think it is a means by which not only Objectivism Online could be made a more pleasant and more effective forum for the discussing of ideas, but also by which Objectivists could more effectively impact society.

I believe that people who take these ideas seriously will do a better job of achieving their ends. Or what ought to be their ends, at least; trolls probably don't stand to profit much through a call for diplomacy, and those who always must be right in every disagreement potentially stand to lose, as well. If fewer conversations result in flames, and if participants hold themselves to a code whereby they have to address themselves to the ideas, rather than allowing themselves to insult the "opposition" when frustrated, I think that conversations will more often result in one (or more) parties ultimately concluding that they were mistaken. Those among us who are sometimes mistaken might see that, or feel it at least, as a loss (and be mistaken in that as well).

 

Relevant to this discussion is the idea of "thick skin." I'm sure much could be said about this, maybe a separate thread.

Having a thick skin is certainly valuable, and I do not mean to argue against it. We cannot control the actions of others, after all, and it is a wide world. But when we choose to interact with others, we can choose whether to be polite, whether to be tactful, whether to be diplomatic, whether to insult, whether to be rude, whether to be snarky, and so forth, depending on our ends, and what methods of communication we judge to best be suited for achieving those ends.

If I were discussing this with people who have conversations with substantial stakes -- like, say, diplomats -- I would continue to argue for diplomacy. You're right that a thick skin would be vitally important in such a job, but so, too, would be tact. I would not expect (though maybe I'm wrong! ) any response that tact isn't important in diplomatic efforts, or that it is too difficult to achieve, or so on. We would simply try to assess how best to communicate our messages effectively, because so much is on the line.

However, I believe that the conversations we have on this forum have substantial stakes, as well. (Or potentially so, at least. Not every conversation is equal.) I believe that when it comes to philosophy -- when it comes to ideas -- there is a lot on the line. That there is everything on the line.

[Devil's Advocate]

...

However, I believe that the conversations we have on this forum have substantial stakes, as well. (Or potentially so, at least. Not every conversation is equal.) I believe that when it comes to philosophy -- when it comes to ideas -- there is a lot on the line. That there is everything on the line.

 

I agree, and think this is in line with one of Ayn Rand's goals as a writer.  Her inclusion of the Fishwife in the Gulch was considered by Barbara Braden and Leonard Peikoff to be a Hitchcock-like cameo appearance in which she expresses, "that when one deals with words, one deals with the mind."

 

Words have meaning, and images too, and probably ought not be used like graffiti to express great philosophical ideas.

[Repairman]

Repairman, firstly what is your opinion ? Do think its moral and rational to earn money by humiliating a group of people ? Be it by running a publication.

 

 

Anuj,

I did err in my interpretation of you post #41, (perhaps false). There is a bit of a linguistics challenge on your part; please don't take it personally, and we can move on.

 

Frankly, I believe it is moral to insult groups of people. Some groups of people need to hear some criticism, regardless of its source or content. Take the example of Malcolm X, the leader of the Black-Muslim movement in the 1960s. He insulted the entire collective of white people, loudly and proudly. He was a champion of free speech and capitalism. For this I admire him. He made many rants against white-America, and said many things of which I disagree. And yet, I would support his right to say his opinion with my entire honkey-heart.

I see that we have found common ground on the character of terrorists. As the topic heading of this thread is the theme of the proper means of communications, I thought it was worth noting this singular divot of common ground. I will have to address the other questions you posed some time later; I have other pressing matters.

[Anuj]

There is a bit of a linguistics challenge on your part; please don't take it personally..

 

But I have to take it personally. Because there just isn't any-other way to take. I thought it was the placement of the word 'False' that could have created confusion? But when you say linguistic. Do you mean in general ? Anyway, Please feel free to point out mistakes during my discourse with you. Be it linguistic, factual or logical. After all, learning is one profession we have to carry out until we grow senile. 

 

Before I comment, I would like to see rest of your reply. So, I'll hold on for now...

[Repairman]

No.I never said that Muslims are financially exploited. Just in case, let me be clearer. I never said money is being looted out of Muslims. 

 

 

.

You can certainly understand why the statement below might be interpreted to have exactly that meaning.

 Hebdo earns money at expense of religious groups by humiliating (not judging !) them. Can you refute this ?

If the money is earned in an exchange of a value for a value, it meet all of my criterion for a legal and moral act of capitalism. By humiliating religious groups, Charlie Hebdo generates entertainment value for its dedicated subscribers. It is the sort of humor they expect. The humiliated religious groups suffer no loss of money, therefore it is not costing the religious groups anything. We seem to both understand this, so there is no dispute. 

Are some people being humiliated? I suppose some are. From what little I know of this publication, they humiliate domestic and international politicians, film stars, gender stereotypes, and anyone under the sun. But humiliation is their job; it's what they do; it's what their subscriber demand, and that is why they pay their hard-earned money when buying a copy. But what bothers you more, Anuj, the fact that people are allowed to publish whatever they wish in liberal Western societies, or the fact that people are allowed to make money at it?

 

The fact that people are lampooned is an accepted fact in Western culture. Now, Anuj, please tell me why there is so little outrage for all of the Muslims being killed by other Muslims in the name of Allah, and you are mostly upset about a comic book?

[DonAthos]

Anuj,

I did err in my interpretation of you post #41, (perhaps false). There is a bit of a linguistics challenge on your part; please don't take it personally, and we can move on.

In the spirit of the thread, I just want to say that I think that there's a lot to like about this post.

Eventually, I'd like to discuss some of the ways in which we communicate things like sincerity, respect, and intellectual honesty to one another -- which I think are keys to productive discussion.

Acknowledging missteps is a commendable act, and one such way.

 

I see that we have found common ground on the character of terrorists. As the topic heading of this thread is the theme of the proper means of communications, I thought it was worth noting this singular divot of common ground.

Seeking and identifying common ground is another.

 

I will have to address the other questions you posed some time later; I have other pressing matters.

Even this can be helpful, in my opinion, in acknowledging the contextual nature of the discussion itself.

While I'm here...

 

Frankly, I believe it is moral to insult groups of people. Some groups of people need to hear some criticism, regardless of its source or content.

I don't mean to take issue with whether it is ever moral to insult groups of people, necessarily, but is that the only way to convey "criticism"? Is it the best way?

If the goal is to convey that criticism (because they "need to hear" it), then this question speaks to my core contention in this thread: I think that people are, generally speaking less likely to receive and process criticism when it is offered as an insult, than otherwise.

Now, I don't know the specifics about Malcolm X, and I don't mean to comment on his situation. But very generally speaking, while I regularly seek to criticize, I rarely seek to insult. I think that they are at least different tactics suited to different ends. In the context of a conversation, criticism may form part of my persuasive efforts; an insult will probably serve to end the conversation.

 

...And yet, I would support his right to say his opinion with my entire honkey-heart.

On this, we agree completely.

[aleph_1]

Anuj,

You said, "Drawing cartoons...could only...result in... wars." Excuse me, but this is absurd. Readers whose hate is fueled by religion may cause wars, but drawing cartoons must never be taken as the cause. The problem is not the cartoons. The problem is violence in the name of Islam. Islam. Islam. Islam! The problem lies within Islam. A significant proportion of adherents to Islam are engaged in violence all over the world right now. Cartoons and comics are never the problem. Being afraid to draw any cartoon for any reason is a problem.

[softwareNerd]

Drawing cartoons of despicable taste stands only to insult them and could only possibly result in gunfire and bombing and battles and wars...

At risk of taking this thread too far afield: North Korea tells its people that the U.S. out to get it. Yet, they won't allow the recent movie "Interview" to be shown in North Korea. Why? Is it because their citizens will rise up at the insult to their leader? Or, will the movie prick a bubble in his image. 

 

I have not seen "Interview", but let's assume it makes the North Korean leader look idiotic and even applauds the idea that he be killed. Suppose you had a magic wand and could decide whether North Korean citizens should see this movie or not. Which option would you prefer? 

 

If rude satire against someone is ineffective communication that can backfire, then shouldn't we hope that nobody in North Korea sees that movie? 

 

The purpose of satire is to show that something that people consider a value, or sacred, etc. is not so. Why is this, prima facie, poor communication?

[Devil's Advocate]

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

[Repairman]

I don't mean to take issue with whether it is ever moral to insult groups of people, necessarily, but is that the only way to convey "criticism"? Is it the best way?

If the goal is to convey that criticism (because they "need to hear" it), then this question speaks to my core contention in this thread: I think that people are, generally speaking less likely to receive and process criticism when it is offered as an insult, than otherwise.

 

Overall, hurling insults is a later development in a discourse gone awry. In the hierarchy of an argument, provocation in the form of name-calling comes last. Nonetheless, if the dispute is one worth waging until won, it is a legitimate and moral option. As in the example of North Korean leader, Kim Un, the guy is impossible. A chip off the old totalitarian block, the guy merits more than a little parody. But, alas, the people who need to view such parody (the prisoners of North Korea) are forbidden, as is any form of free speech in his prison. This is at the heart of this subtext throughout this thread, as it was in the very entertaining thread initiated by Jason Stotts, under the heading: Islamic Terrorism. Stotts suggested that this was an appropriate time to intensify the ridicule of Islam. I have no objection to such an undertaking, although I prefer a more conscientious approach to swatting the proverbial hornets nest. But the hornets need swatting, that is, someone needs to tell the confused and delusional followers of the Prophet that their emperors wear no clothes. To continually ignore the root cause of Islamic terror is to ensure that it will continue. The solution requires an objective examination of Islam. Most of us, myself included, do not have the inclination to study the Koran or the vast array of Muslim interpretations, and therefore are ill-suited to speak as theological or scholarly critics of Koranic teaching. We want to get on with our lives. We want to make a living, rather than take the lives of others. So we take up constructive and productive pursuits. Or the more talented among us take up the craft of comedy. I like to laugh. I think the more high-profile current figures in the news are an ideal subject for comedy. Islamic society has shown little if any remorse over the shame they bring upon themselves; why shouldn't we, the people of the West, shower a little shame on them. Oh, because they will shoot us, that's right. Or they'll engage in some infantile rage, claiming to be victims. Puh-leaze, how many more victims of beheadings, and suicide bombings, and rampaging Islamic psychopaths, and on and on...

Insults are not the only way to convey criticism, neither are they the best way. But how long do we have to wait for a reformer to integrate reason into Islam? How many more dead do we bury from these infantile murderers? The more rational among us may continue to coddle these mystic-minded misfits, but it won't address the root cause, i.e: Allah is a myth. And I believe there are more than a few children of Muslim persuasion that have doubts about their parents' faith. And when they see the cover of a magazine that challenges the whole idea of the existence of that Hell that their parents assured them that they would burn in, if he/she has an impure thought, then he/she may come to his/her own sense of reason. And if that happens to only one Muslim child, then God Bless Charlie Hebdo.

[DonAthos]

Overall, hurling insults is a later development in a discourse gone awry.

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. The discourse, such as it is, goes awry before it even properly begins.

Anyways, you've raised North Korea and the Hebdo massacre, and I'd like to respond. As a little additional context for my remarks, I have a lifelong love for both parody and satire. That I'm willing to question satire's role in persuasion (or the role of insult in critique) should not be construed to mean that I dislike it, generally, or think it serves no good purpose. I haven't yet come to any conclusions as to its efficacy, or when it is appropriate (or whether it is ever inappropriate).

 

As in the example of North Korean leader, Kim Un, the guy is impossible. A chip off the old totalitarian block, the guy merits more than a little parody.

Completely agreed. He is ridiculous.

 

Stotts suggested that this was an appropriate time to intensify the ridicule of Islam. I have no objection to such an undertaking, although I prefer a more conscientious approach to swatting the proverbial hornets nest. But the hornets need swatting, that is, someone needs to tell the confused and delusional followers of the Prophet that their emperors wear no clothes.

Yes. Absolutely.

Ideally -- and maybe this is not possible -- but ideally this can be communicated in such a way as helps them see reason, and not one which radicalizes them further into violence. Or, I mean, such is the path I would want to walk, if I could.

I'm not going to fault Charlie Hebdo for their actions. I cannot put myself in their shoes, and there is no just sense in which they deserved what happened to them. But speaking for myself, I would not have made the choices they made.

 

Insults are not the only way to convey criticism, neither are they the best way. But how long do we have to wait for a reformer to integrate reason into Islam? How many more dead do we bury from these infantile murderers?

I have no answers to those questions. I sincerely wish I did.

 

The more rational among us may continue to coddle these mystic-minded misfits, but it won't address the root cause, i.e: Allah is a myth.

I strive to be as rational as possible, but I'm not interested in coddling anyone. When I argue that we should strive to communicate effectively, with such tact as required to better persuade, it is so that we can address the root cause. Yes, that Allah is a myth, but so much more than that.

Ultimately we need people to be rational, and to have critical thinking tools that they can use, and to be willing to think for themselves. That is to say, if somewhat metaphorically, we need people to listen to "the voice of reason." How can we best inspire others to do that? (And to be clear, I'm not asking rhetorically. If anyone has some better strategy, I'm on board.)

 

And I believe there are more than a few children of Muslim persuasion that have doubts about their parents' faith. And when they see the cover of a magazine that challenges the whole idea of the existence of that Hell that their parents assured them that they would burn in, if he/she has an impure thought, then he/she may come to his/her own sense of reason.

So this is the crux of the question, for me, where such satire is concerned, and its role in persuasion. I'm sure that there are many Muslim children who have the doubts you mention -- who have moments where, perhaps, they might be reached. In those moments, are they helped on the path towards reason to see Nicky's suggestion of Mohammed having sex with an animal, or something equivalent? Does it make such a child say to himself, "Hmm, yes, there is something here worth investigating"? Or is it likelier that they are pushed away by such a thing?

And having posed that question, I don't know the answer. I don't even know if it's the proper question to ask, quite frankly. What I can tell you is that I'm seeing stories now, as I'm sure you are, of the Muslim world reacting to Hebdo's latest issue, with its rendering of Mohammed (which I don't find particularly ridiculous; it strikes me as conciliatory, honestly), and I guess I find myself wondering -- is this really the path we want to travel?

If all of the newspapers of the Western world would heed Stotts' call, and start to print the most provocative material possible, aiming at kicking the hornet's nest apart and letting them all fly loose at once, and not relent, and not apologize, and keep the pedal pressed to the metal, and if that led to some incredible struggle with carnage unimaginable -- a true global jihad -- with the West eventually emerging victorious, but millions upon millions dead, wicked and innocent alike, in the wake -- would it have been worth it? If we can see some result like that on the horizon, should we take steps to avoid it, if we can? Should we struggle instead through this slow, uncertain approach, where terrorists emerge from time to time and wreak their atrocities while we try to bring the rest of the Muslim world into the light?

I don't know.

But my choice is to make such reasoned arguments as I am capable of, while I can, to heed "the voice of reason" as best as I am able, and to ask others to do the same by the strongest and most persuasive means available to me.

Edited January 16, 2015 by DonAthos

[dream_weaver]

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

I would imagine that would depend on who was on top - and more importantly, to serve as a rebuttal, who won the war that broke out as a result.

Edited January 16, 2015 by dream_weaver

[softwareNerd]

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

If you could read my mind    you would know I made my response ignoring that specific cartoon, but thinking of satire as a category -- and thinking mostly about "The Interview"

 

Having pondered it a bit more... ...

 

Most satire will not change people's minds, and is seldom aimed at doing so. Something like "Gulliver's Travels" is an attempt to change minds: people who take their government and social niceties seriously are invited to see how ridiculous they are. However, a lot of satire -- and perhaps comedy in general -- is written for an audience that already agrees with the premise, or will readily agree with the premise when it is shown to them. 

 

So, complaining about whether Hebdo's cartoons are a good way to communicate with Muslims is actually besides the point. The cartoons are for Charlie Hebdo's readers, who will likely see the point and smile as they read the articles. The cartoon makes the point visual for these readers. The cartoon of sodomy among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit makes a point to Charlie Hedbo reader. 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. I suppose its context could give it a message, but on the face of it, it is weak compared to the Hebdo one (which itself is just mildly funny). 

 

To make up a Rand equivalent, imagine if Mother Jones had an article explaining why social-security was a good thing and why right-wingers are trying to destroy it by privatizing it. Now, imagine they came up with some cartoon of Rand shouting down social security in one panel, and then standing in a social-security line to collect her check in the second panel. That would surely be a message that would click with their readers. They could write it up in a few sentences, but a cartoon is visual and sticks. And, one can add things to it...perhaps she's wearing a witch's hat and flying away on her broom in the last panel. Or, one could take a sexual example and come up with something that satirizes here relationship with Branden.

 

If an Ayn Rand fan saw something like that, he might react in all sorts of ways. perhaps the odd one would even be less of a fan. At any rate, it is not aimed at communicating with him.

 

As for posting the carttons elsewhere -- the way all sorts of newspapers have posted Hebdo cartoons, or the way people have posted to Facebook, or even here on the forum... none of this is about communicating. For the most part, it is not even about sharing the joke. none of it would have been posted if the person had come across a Hebdo cartoon without the whole terrorist episode. The postings have been either to share the nature of Hebdo's cartoons, or to show support for the idea of free-speech. There's a sense of "if that offends them, they should see this". it is the posting of something offensive to some group because someone used force when someone else tried.

Edited January 16, 2015 by softwareNerd

[Devil's Advocate]

I've seen the social security and Branden issue arise in the past, and speaking to the latter I once posted that Ayn Rand put the "Oh" in Objectivism.  Pretty mild stuff, but then it never felt right to me to be overly critical of human foibles.  I heared Steven King once refer to a line he heard describing an addict as someone who hit the curb and bounced lower.  I guess I'm just not enthusiastic about seeing how low we can go when sparring with an opponent.

 

My list of great satirists includes Will Rogers and Mark Twain.  They managed to get the point across without stooping to potty humor, and usually managed to get the targets of their wit to laugh along with them.

[Repairman]

DonAthos,

Perhaps we should acknowledge that we are in very different conflict all together. The debate, as I think we agree, should originate within the Muslim societies. Whether it's criticism heavy or criticism lite, if it is criticism from the non-Muslim West, it must be evil to the impressionable young Muslim. Our shared values, specifically freedom of speech, are simply not welcome there. We have had hundreds of years to reform from our medieval past, and many of their most influential leaders have fathers or grandfathers who lived in a tent in the desert. In my own generation, I have witness such a variety of cultural changes in the United States,i.e. changes in acceptance of multiracial groups, inter-racial marriages, women's liberation, homosexual acceptance, and the reform of marijuana laws. None of these changes, which would have seemed utterly radical if not impossible in my childhood, would have come about if not for the persist and committed pursuit of change from within American society. The role of free speech cannot be dismissed as an agent of change, and at the same time, we've had gangsta-rap advocates of killing cops, neo-Nazis, and Hustler Humor emerge almost simultaneously. We have had our episodes in the West, but the basic institutions are intact. To conservative Muslim societies exposed to Western culture with all of its diversity, it must seem quite bewildering, especially if they have relocated to the West. But I am not an advocate of diversity for the sake of diversity, I am an advocate of reason for the simple fact that it is right. I hope I did not seem to suggest that you were cuddling Muslim minds, any more than I was, as I believe you too are an advocate of reason. I only want to express freely my frustrations about this strange animal in our midst, this medieval throw-back to the Dark Ages, that continues to violently take lives as a fundamental duty to their supernatural beliefs. 

[JASKN]

Is this charity ? [...]

I believe, your comment above is in response to my reply to "Man-with-Animal-sex" perverse cartoon post in this thread. Where was I wrong to call it uncivilized ? If you think I was wrong, please stand as an advocate to it instead of sacrificing. 

My comment meant nothing more than to point out that there is some kind of language or cultural barrier between you and our English members. Each side has to put forth some extra effort to communicate what we mean, because the common ways our respective languages guide our thoughts is not mutually understood and often leads to misunderstandings. I was using you as an easy target, since you're here participating.

[JASKN]

Forgive and forget? Oh puh-lease. I think this is just a spin-off of "judge not and be not judged."

I don't have a comprehensive answer for this myself, yet. It's not possible to become indifferent about ideas you hold true and important, and so you shouldn't try. But at the same time I think the constant bickering between Objectivists is peculiar, to put it as mildly as I can. I'm not sure where in-between the best practices lay.

[dream_weaver]

I don't have a comprehensive answer for this myself, yet. It's not possible to become indifferent about ideas you hold true and important, and so you shouldn't try. But at the same time I think the constant bickering between Objectivists is peculiar, to put it as mildly as I can. I'm not sure where in-between the best practices lay.

I know it was your post to which I replied, and the puh-leeze comes across somewhat sardonic, - it is just that the upbringing in a 'forgive and forget', 'let by-gones be by-gones' in conjunction with a 'judge not' perspective that plays heavily into this for me. If "judge not and be not judged" translates to "judge, and prepare to be judged"; the "forgive and forget" is just another way of asking for a moral blank check.

 

Man, as a rational being, has the capacity to engage his rational faculty through most of his life. Granted, the longer it is held off, the more difficult I would imagine it to be to engaged. Forgiveness, I would hold, is transgression dependent. The greater the 'sin', the greater the retribution, or restitution that would come into play arises.

 

Since this comes from a biblical source, lets pull a proverb that may be applicable to this. Don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be considered also a fool. The contra-postive being: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be considered wise in his own way.

Rand puts this similarly for the latter,  advocating the expressing of disagreement without going into detail. She also acknowledges that irrationality (more specifically, those that deny reason), cannot be defeated with reason.

 

I don't think this resolves the notion of "forgive and forget", but should lay some solid groundwork for building upon.

Edited January 16, 2015 by dream_weaver

[DonAthos]

DonAthos,

Perhaps we should acknowledge that we are in very different conflict all together.

Absolutely. I think it is a very complicated situation, and I do not pretend to understand every aspect of it, or to know of a surefire solution.

 

I only want to express freely my frustrations about this strange animal in our midst, this medieval throw-back to the Dark Ages, that continues to violently take lives as a fundamental duty to their supernatural beliefs.

I understand and share your frustration.

[Devil's Advocate]

... I only want to express freely my frustrations about this strange animal in our midst, this medieval throw-back to the Dark Ages, that continues to violently take lives as a fundamental duty to their supernatural beliefs. 

 

 

....

I understand and share your frustration.

 

Do not imagine for a moment that "Islamic" terrorism has anything to do with a "supernatural" belief.

[Repairman]

Do not imagine for a moment that "Islamic" terrorism has anything to do with a "supernatural" belief.

The supernatural belief I'm referring to is their super-invisible friend, Allah.

[Devil's Advocate]

The supernatural belief I'm referring to is their super-invisible friend, Allah.

 

Yes, I know.  But Allah will not be defeated with ridicule or proof that he doesn't exist.  I realize this strays off topic a bit, but...

 

Humans have been invoking God and damning him for as long as we can remember.  Voltaire was right: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."  We are stuck with that kind of spiritual baggage, but that doesn't make  terrorism a "strange animal in our midst."  The animal we are struggling against is guerrila warfare, and comes right out of Sun Tzu's playbook, The Art of War.

 

"Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." ~ Che Guevara - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

 

One of my favorite movies is The Winds of War.  In it Pug Henry (who was sent to Germany to study the Germans prior to America entering WWII) declares to Roosevelt, "In the end there's only one thing we need to know about the Germans - How to beat them." (or words to that effect, if memory doesn't serve)

 

We will not beat the terrorists with ridicule.  That only fuels their flame.  The premise that peace will follow proof that gott ist tot is seriously flawed.

[Repairman]

Yes, I know.  But Allah will not be defeated with ridicule or proof that he doesn't exist.  I realize this strays off topic a bit, but...

Devil's Advocate, I agree, it is a bit off topic. Are you suggesting some specific direction for an Islamic Reformation? I am not suggesting ridicule as a means of defeat. I am defending the right to ridicule as an option among many in the arsenal of freedom. Nothing more. The fact that anyone had to invent a super-invisible friend to pass down to his heirs is a fact, and I concede, one that is a formidable obstacle in this clash of cultures. If you are familiar enough with this strange animal that you can coax it into conforming to modern civil codes of behavior, while keepin' the faith, you may be my guest and give it a try.

[Repairman]

But I have to take it personally. Because there just isn't any-other way to take. I thought it was the placement of the word 'False' that could have created confusion? But when you say linguistic. Do you mean in general ? Anyway, Please feel free to point out mistakes during my discourse with you. Be it linguistic, factual or logical. After all, learning is one profession we have to carry out until we grow senile. 

 

Before I comment, I would like to see rest of your reply. So, I'll hold on for now...

Anuj,

As I said in post #54, I will try to answer your concerns as briefly and concisely as I can. I will do my best in keeping with the theme of this thread to avoid condescension and patronizing tones.

 

Free speech is an institution in American life, guaranteed under the First Amendment of our Constitution. It nearly died within the first generation of its creators. Freedom is a value so recently conceived in Western civilization, that we in the West barely know what to do with it. The mishandling of such a precious value could result in its indefinite loss. That it is a precious value is unmistakable. This freedom has allowed for reforms in our society such as I have mentioned in earlier posts. And it has been at the center of many debates as to its proper use. Obviously I cannot speak for the French, but they hold similar values. Both of our nations fought revolutions to throw off the yoke of monarchy from our shoulders and necks. In the process, we gained our Natural Rights as Men. And as men, we have the freedom to stand upright, and say what's on our minds, even if it sends someone else into a rage. The fact that the offended party hasn't the sense of security in their own convictions, or control over their emotions is of no consequence to the speaker of said offenses. The speaker's rights are primary. The listener has many options as to how to respond, but violence is clearly not the lawful option, nor is it the proper one. The speaker is judged by his choice of words. The receiving public may accept his/her message or reject it. They may not suppress it, however they may ignore it. Ignore it enough and it will go away of its own insignificance.

 

The brutally offensive cartoons in question throughout this debate are merely one example of free speech in practice. I have personal anecdotal evidence to support the theory that ridiculous, juvenile, absurd, even sexually perverse characterizations of religious and political images can and do foster a critical, questioning, and free mind. But I will spare you the boring details of my life story. But I will insist that it is as personally important to me to preserve the rights of cartoonists as it is to preserve the rights of the religiously minded to practice their faith. If their faith includes murder, it is an abomination of the most inhuman kind and must be relegated to history by decent, brave, freedom-loving people everywhere.

 

Ideas do eventually die. If their are any more persons alive today who believe the Earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe, around which all other cosmic bodies revolve, they are a primitive and dying people. Science may not be able to answer all of the deepest questions of the human mind, but all of the religions that I know of offer only nonsensical answers. I do not expect atheism to become the next popular fad on campus, but it has its place in the discourse. In America, the "new religion" of political correctness and diversity requires various degrees of self-censorship. We must not disturb the easily-agitated, lest they spin out of control and hurt someone. I suggest that the easily-agitated get a grip on their own emotions by what ever means necessary. See a doctor or some other form of counsel. But we the living must forge ahead with the freedom to use our hard-fought freedom and champion not only new ideas, but the right and most truthful ideas. If no one was ever offended, their would be no need for a First Amendment.

So, Anuj, I hope that in the future, we can conduct civil discourse, make distinctions with proper identifications, and avoid any personal internalization of disagreement, as disagreement is to be expected. Thank you for patiently waiting for this response.

Repairman