"Arguments Against Objectivism" Subforum

[BurgessLau]

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

Perhaps we are having a miscommunication. I am puzzled by your questions.

Who said anything about previous registration or the date of registration?

The point I made was that of course we don't need to go outside this forum to find non-Objectivists for a debate between Objectivists and non-Objectivists. Non-Objectivists already are present in the overall forum but cannot (or should not) now openly advocate for their non-Objectivist positions.

Setting up a special subforum would give them one place in OO.net to do so without penalty. More importantly (I don't care about non-Objectivists), Objectivists in this forum will have an opportunity to debate -- or observe a debate with -- non-Objectivists under moderated conditions.

[softwareNerd]

I have radical views on a variety of issues – I’m sure I could find many non-trivial topics to debate other members on, and I'm sure that many others could as well.

Enough talk! Go for it, David!

[DavidV]

TADA!

[Cole]

Can you please explain what this means;

"...with a reply-limit of 24 hours and a maximum of three responses per side."

Edit:

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

Edited July 31, 2005 by Cole

[nimble]

I agree with Cole.

Is it permissible to argue from non-Objectivist positions?

[Cole]

From the looks of things, it's shaping up to be the least popular forum on the board. I think this clearly confirms the problem I pointed out in my last response.

I'd like to now re-introduce my idea of an Arguments Against Objectivism forum in hopes that it will be implemented.

[BurgessLau]

From the looks of things, it's shaping up to be the least popular forum on the board. I think this clearly confirms the problem I pointed out in my last response.

In the first place, should popularity be the criterion for adding a forum? I don't see why.

In the second place, what evidence ("the looks of things") do you have that the proposed forum, whose format and rules have not even been defined, will be the least popular of all the forums on OO.net?

In the third place, I can' find, in your preceding post, any serious objection to having one place in OO.net where non-Objectivists can debate without penalty. Or are you advocating that non-Objectivists should be able to infest all the forums? Your position is unclear to me. Could you explain?

[BurgessLau]

Is it permissible to argue from non-Objectivist positions?

Do you mean now? I can't speak for the admins and moderators, but I can refer you to the present Forum Rules. Have you studied them? My interpretation is that advocating non-Objectivist positions -- that is, tenets of philosophies other than Objectivism -- is prohibited by the Forum Rules (the last time I read them). You can now ask questions about Objectivism, but not use OO.net resources to advance other philosophies.

In the proposed new forum, you would not only be permitted to argue from your own philosophy, Nimble, but you would be encouraged to do so. Do you object to that? If so, why?

[BurgessLau]

I'd like to now re-introduce my idea of an Arguments Against Objectivism forum in hopes that it will be implemented.

Are you saying you will re-introduce your idea? If so, when? Or are you reminding your readers that you have already presented it -- somewhere -- and it should be reconsidered? If the latter, where is it? If you give a specific reference -- either a link or the title of the thread and post number -- your proposal will be easier to find. I am very interested in reading (or rereading?) your proposal, assuming it addresses the key issues of focus, etiquette, and limiting non-Objectivists to specific threads under close moderation.

[Cole]

In the first place, should popularity be the criterion for adding a forum? I don't see why.

No. The ability to supply a demand should be a criteria in adding a forum- which is evidenced in the popularity of the forum after it is created. When the new forum does not permit or categorize anything that was not previously permitted or categorized, then it makes since that the forum would be very unpopular.

In the second place, what evidence ("the looks of things") do you have that the proposed forum, whose format and rules have not even been defined, will be the least popular of all the forums on OO.net?

I was referring to "Debate Forums" as it currently exists- I was not referring to any propositions. I was not predicting the future. I was commenting on its actual state. The evidence that it is the least popular forum is that it has zero replies.

In the third place, I can' find, in your preceding post, any serious objection to having one place in OO.net where non-Objectivists can debate without penalty. Or are you advocating that non-Objectivists should be able to infest all the forums?

If you can't find where I object to an idea, then on what basis do you believe that I do object to the idea? Why would you imply a conclusion in which you yourself admitted there was no evidence in support of? What lead you to think that I advocate allowing non-Objectivists to post anywhere on OO.net? Quite to the contrary, I made this thread to propose the idea of a specific subform for "Arguments Against Objectivism." How you could see this and gather that I oppose a specific subforum, and instead support the idea of non-Objectivist arguments being posted anywhere on OO.net, is beyond me.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Cole

[Cole]

Are you saying you will re-introduce your idea? If so, when? Or are you reminding your readers that you have already presented it -- somewhere -- and it should be reconsidered? If the latter, where is it? If you give a specific reference -- either a link or the title of the thread and post number -- your proposal will be easier to find. I am very interested in reading (or rereading?) your proposal, assuming it addresses the key issues of focus, etiquette, and limiting non-Objectivists to specific threads under close moderation.

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

[Cole]

Do you mean now? I can't speak for the admins and moderators, but I can refer you to the present Forum Rules. Have you studied them? My interpretation is that advocating non-Objectivist positions -- that is, tenets of philosophies other than Objectivism -- is prohibited by the Forum Rules (the last time I read them). You can now ask questions about Objectivism, but not use OO.net resources to advance other philosophies.

In the proposed new forum, you would not only be permitted to argue from your own philosophy, Nimble, but you would be encouraged to do so. Do you object to that? If so, why?

My objection to the new forum (as it was created- not as it was proposed), as is apparently shared by nimble, is that it nowhere allows for explicitly non-Objectivist arguments. These posts are forbidden by the forum rules, and there was never any exception made to these rules. Greedy Capitalist said this about the new forum:

"There will be no judges in a debate, but the debate parameters and forum rules will be strictly enforced by a moderator, and violation of the rules is grounds for termination of the debate."

(emphasis mine)

Since the forum rules still prohibit using the board to advance non-Objectivist ideas, and since these same forum rules still govern the new forum (according to Greedy Capitalist's quote), then posting explicitly non-Objectivist arguments in the new forum is not allowed. Therefore, the new forum does not permit anything that was not permitted before its creation, and it is not the forum that was being proposed in this thread.

[BurgessLau]

Re-introducing an idea does not involve repeating the entire idea- especially when the original idea is easily accessible to everybody reading the re-introduction.

Yes, if they know exactly where to go.

It was proposed in the opening post of this thread.

Yes, two weeks and dozens of posts in the past. Thank you for now pointing it out.

[BurgessLau]

My objection to the new forum (as it was created- not as it was proposed), as is apparently shared by nimble [...]

And by me.

is that it nowhere allows for explicitly non-Objectivist arguments. These posts are forbidden by the forum rules, and there was never any exception made to these rules. Greedy Capitalist said this about the new forum:

"There will be no judges in a debate, but the debate parameters and forum rules will be strictly enforced by a moderator, and violation of the rules is grounds for termination of the debate."

(emphasis mine)

Again, I agree with your assessment now that my confusion about proposals discussed in this long thread versus the recently (and, by me, unnoticed) new debate forum has been cleared up.

Apparently the new subforum is distinguished from other forums only by a formal debate format. That might be useful when, occasionally, two Objectivists have a heated dispute over an interpretation or application of an Objectivist principle and want to make their dispute more formal.

But, unfortunately, there is -- as you note -- no way for a debate about Objectivist principles to happen in OO.net, because Forum Rules prohibit such.

Edited August 4, 2005 by BurgessLau

[BurgessLau]

TADA!

Now I see that "TADA" is neither a mysterious acronym nor a non-English imperative, but is a link that should have been punctuated as "ta-da" or spelled "ta-dah." Mystery solved.

[jrs]

But, unfortunately, there is -- as you note -- no way for a debate about Objectivist principles to happen in OO.net, because Forum Rules prohibit such.

There needs to be some common basis for a rational debate to occur. So I would suggest that GreedyCapitalist modify the rules to allow the following:

When proposing a debate, the proposer will specify some portion of Objectivism which will be assumed as true by both sides, say its Metaphysics and Epistemology.

The topic being debated will be in a more derivative part of the philosophy, say in Ethics. Then the proposer will take a position at variance from Objectivism in that derivative part of philosophy, but must argue in a rational way from the agreed portion of Objectivism. The opposition will adhere to the regular version of Objectivism entirely.

[softwareNerd]

Just wondering if anyone here is interested in taking an anti-Objectivist position in a debate, either from conviction or as devils' advocate . If so, could you state what the topic for debate would be? A specific topic suggestion would be helpful in taking this discussion closer to implementation.

[BurgessLau]

Just wondering if anyone here is interested in taking an anti-Objectivist position in a debate, either from conviction or as devils' advocate   . If so, could you state what the topic for debate would be? A specific topic suggestion would be helpful in taking this discussion closer to implementation.

First, I hope that nimble will respond with a topic. In the past, if I recall correctly, he has expressed a desire to argue for a non-Objectivist position, but didn't specify a particular principle at that time.

Second, with hesitation, I am willing to be Devil's Advocate in a debate on reason vs. faith. I have been studying narrow aspects of that debate for a long time, and I would like to "exercise" (and perhaps thereby better integrate) the bits and pieces I have picked up. My second purpose would be to gain a little experience in a formal debate setting. I have never participated in a formal debate before; I know I would learn from it.

If I can be successful as a DA, others might benefit from seeing the range of pro-faith positions offered.

I feel hesitation for two reasons. First, I am concerned that the format might leave inattentive readers (as I sometimes am) believing, "Burgess Laughlin has converted to Christianity." Perhaps I can put a caution statement on every one of my posts, similar to the warnings on cigarette packages.

Second, I would want to negotiate response time. I don't want to be bound to quick, snappy responses. I want the time to think about my DA statements and my responses to the other debater. The purpose of such a debate would be education for everyone (including the debaters!), not entertainment as if debate were intellectual tennis.

(I will today review the current debate subforum rules and options for rules to see if there are other pitfalls to avoid.)

Questions?

P. S. -- I encourage others to consider taking a DA position on any subject that they have studied closely. Being able to argue for a position you oppose is a kind of test of understanding of that position (without approval). For certain intellectuals -- those involved in debate (in one form or another) in their careers, for example -- being a DA can be helpful. If you think you know your subject well, and you think you are ready for debate in the wider world outside OO.net, then prove it by adopting a DA position.

Edited August 5, 2005 by BurgessLau

[softwareNerd]

In the past, if I recall correctly, ["nimble "] has expressed a desire to argue for a non-Objectivist position, but didn't specify a particular principle at that time.

I have PM-ed "nimble", to draw his attention to this thread.

Second, with hesitation, I am willing to be Devil's Advocate in a debate on reason vs. faith.

Great. Now we need a pro-Objectivism opponent. Any volunteers?

I feel hesitation for two reasons. First, ... inattentive readers ... "Burgess Laughlin has converted to Christianity." 

I suggest that we set up a couple of "generic" user-names (say "devilsAdvocate1", "devilsAdvocate2"). We can figure a way of letting a member like yourself use one of these names for the duration of the debate.

Second, I would want to negotiate response time. I don't want to be bound to quick, snappy responses. I want the time to think ...

I agree and would suggest that opponents should agree to think before answering . Actually, I'm serious, you can have a "gentleman's agreement" to wait/think (say) at least 1 hour before replying.

[HaloNoble6]

I nominate SoftwareNerd for the pro-Objectivist position.

[nimble]

I would be willing to take an un-Objectivist position, either through conviction or devil's advocate. The only known ideas of Objectivism that I disagree with through conviction is intellectual property rights (in the legal sense) and anarchy, and maybe the Objectivist stance on the killing of civilians in times of war (this probably stems from my anarchy views though). Any other position I would be willing to play devil's advocate, because after going through college, I feel that I know all the common arguments against Objectivist positions. If anyone wants to debate, that would be fine. Before I enter into any debate though, I would like to know that expressing my views will not harm my status on this site. I really like it here (the intellectual atmosphere).

Also, whoever I debate against, please don't take anything personally...I don't want to make enemies. I respect just about everyone here (except for a few condescending know-it-alls).

[Cole]

The reason vs. faith debate proposal draws into question the suggestion made by jrs; that both debaters should be in agreement with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. I don't see any reason why matters of metaphysics or epistemology should not be debated. Afterall, arguments against metaphysical axioms are the easiest to disprove. However, it may be helpful for the first post by each debater to be a formal argument (in the style of Traditional Logic) with clearly defined premises and a conclusion. This way it can be discovered exactly where the point of disagreement is.

The biggest problem I imagine happening is that there will be no clear conclusion to the debates. It's rare for one side of a debate to admit defeat and for the debate to end. When it comes to internet message boards, it usually means that debates go on endlessly (or just end abruptly with no conclusion) repeating the same points. Although this behavior is much less likely in the Objectivist arguing the devil's advocate position, it still poses a problem to the debate forum. It would seem that the easiest solution would be to have a third-party judge to decide when the debate has been concluded. The trouble with this is that the third-party judge may simply be wrong, or that the very notion of this type of final-say (Objectivist) arbitrator would scare away any potential non-Objectivist debaters.

I am willing to argue for the devil's advocate position on anarchy or intellectual property, or the Objectivist position in any debate. I suspect that the reason vs. faith debate will be interesting and informative.

Edit: I wrote this before I saw nimble's post. I'd rather he take the non-Objectivist positions on anarchy or intellectual property since these are his actual opinions.

Edited August 5, 2005 by Cole

[BurgessLau]

Nimble is the ideal candidate for the first debate. He has stated clearly his support for anarchy and therefore his opposition against Objectivist politics. On this issue he doesn't need to be a devil's advocate. He can speak from his own convictions.

Before any debate begins, I think the moderators need to clearly state what they see the purpose of the debate as being. My view is that the debate should mimic the real world, but under somewhat controlled, civilized conditions. This purpose allows the bad guy (sorry, nimble) to use any arguments he would use in the world outside OO.net. Doing so will help achieve the purpose (as I see it): training Objectivist intellectual activists by showing what non-Objectivists believe and how they justify it, as well as how they argue.

Negatively, the purpose of the debate, I hold, is not to reach a conclusion at all and not to declare a winner -- but only to expose Objectivist viewers to the ideas and methods of argument that can be used (pro or con).

Cole's suggestions -- which, as always, are clearly and concisely argued -- to have a syllogistic opening or to limit the debate by agreement on basic principles -- makes sense for the purpose of finding truth or establishing a winner (by logical standards). They are too restrictive for a debate conducted to mimic the world outside OO.net. What I have in mind here is a debate conducted by a philosophy department on a university campus. There would be general rules of etiquette, but no attempt to limit content.

Whichever purpose the moderators choose, it should be stated clearly. Purpose is usually the main element that determines context and therefore procedures.

Edited August 5, 2005 by BurgessLau

[BurgessLau]

The biggest problem I imagine happening is that there will be no clear conclusion to the debates. It's rare for one side of a debate to admit defeat and for the debate to end.

Yes, debaters rarely admit defeat. Much easier, though, is admitting that the debate has become fruitless. At least as an experiment in the first debate (nimble vs. x), I think we can rely on at least one of the debaters to say the debate is going nowhere. In a face-to-face debate, a time limit would end the debate. But that isn't appropriate, I think, for an internet debate (for example, because some individuals may be sleeping while others are writing posts).

When it comes to internet message boards, it usually means that debates go on endlessly (or just end abruptly with no conclusion) repeating the same points. Although this behavior is much less likely in the Objectivist arguing the devil's advocate position, it still poses a problem to the debate forum. It would seem that the easiest solution would be to have a third-party judge to decide when the debate has been concluded. The trouble with this is that the third-party judge may simply be wrong, or that the very notion of this type of final-say (Objectivist) arbitrator would scare away any potential non-Objectivist debaters.

You are right. There needs to be some mechanism for deciding the debate is "over." I would suggest this:

1st criterion -- If either debater decides to stop, the debate stops.

2nd criterion (if the first fails) -- If a moderator believes the debate is going nowhere, he should intervene and ask the debaters for a reason for continuing. If either debater says it should stop, then the debate stops. If both debaters want to continue, but can't give a valid reason for doing so -- in the moderator's judgment -- then the debate stops.

Suggestion: Let's try the first debate by relying on the 1st criterion being the most likely to be used.

Again, if the purpose of the debate is to educate intellectual activists, that purpose can be achieved up to the point of endless repetition. At that point, the purpose is no longer being served and all can call for a halt without loss of face -- if that is an issue for anyone.

[BurgessLau]

I suggest that we set up a couple of "generic" user-names (say "devilsAdvocate1", "devilsAdvocate2"). We can figure a way of letting a member like yourself use one of these names for the duration of the debate.

Speaking for myself only, I am willing to forgo a new screen name, as long as I can place a CAUTION STATEMENT on my posts. Apparently nimble has no problem with using his screen name as long as the moderators assure him that he won't be penalized for his disagreement with Objectivism.

Actually, I'm serious, you can have a "gentleman's agreement" to wait/think (say) at least 1 hour before replying.

When someone tells me he is serious, I wonder: Is this humor too? (I am laughing.)

Your suggestion of waiting one hour for a reply is either humorous or based seriously on a view of a debate different from mine. I would suggest a reply limit of 3 days, to allow plenty of time for thought and to allow for irregular schedules (short vacations, etc.).

But, as you said, this is negotiable.