Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Disgusting Topics Being Allowed

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Moderator's mote: This thread first arose out of a discussion in another thread (link). It has been split off here as a separate thread.

The only thing that disgusts me more than jrs' posts is that they were allowed to be on this forum. A question for the admins: What exactly is the policy for advocates of disturbing views? Would you tolerate someone saying child sex should be legal? Are you willing to take the risk of having someone stumble onto this forum only to receive a backwards view of Objectivism?

Just thought I'd register my disgust. If the policy here is as lenient as I think it is, I don't see the point in posting here anymore.

So, Oakes, do you think the thread should have been in the Debate sub-forum?

I haven't read much of this thread myself, but since quite a few seasoned members are participating, I assume that it is not one-sided. So, why would someone reading it focus on just one side of the argument? and what would that say of the chance that that person would be the type who would be sympathetic to reason anyway?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Oakes, do you think the thread should have been in the Debate sub-forum?

I haven't read much of this thread myself, but since quite a few seasoned members are participating, I assume that it is not one-sided. So, why would someone reading it focus on just one side of the argument? and what would that say of the chance that that person would be the type who would be sympathetic to reason anyway?

I don't think it should be on any forum, certainly not a debate forum since this isn't really a debate. I understand that others were challenging the view, which is fine, but even allowing people to make these kinds of arguments might suggest to casual readers that it is something rational people can disagree on.

I understand that the forum should be open to people with mistaken views - hell, I'm sure my own mistaken views still exist in the archives of this forum. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is possible that a person who would never hurt a fly might ask: "Should the law stop me from murdering my child?" Similarly, a person who is completely grounded in reality but does not understand much about philosophy might say: "I really cannot argue that reality exists; I suppose I just believe it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that others were challenging the view, which is fine, but even allowing people to make these kinds of arguments might suggest to casual readers that it is something rational people can disagree on.

I agree with you, that there are disgusting viewpoints in the thread. I have attempted to address why I think those views are irrational, though I haven't really tried to demonstrate with specific intent why they are disgusting. However, the point of the discussion is to try to reason out what actually is the rational point of view.

I would be glad if you joined in and gave your reasoning for the rational position, and why the opposing view is disgusting. Perhaps you have some way of establishing this that may settle the matter for all of us.

Personally, I used to think the idea of abortion was disgusting, and that advocates of abortion were murderers. I held a different viewpoint than I do now after discussing the issue and seeing some reasoning that my emotion was previously clouding.

Anybody can view a small glimpse of virtually any medium and find something that offends them. And yes, different people have different tolerances to that which they are willing to wade through to try to understand the larger context of the medium. But as softwareNerd said, there are opposing viewpoints being expressed, not to mention entirely different threads of topics that can be perused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed... but more: In discussions of "why can a mother abort her fetus" the question "then why can't a parent kill his child" often comes up. Since a fetus grows into a child, this is not far-fetched. As RationalCop points out, to say "it's obviously disgusting to kill a baby" is no more of an argument than to say "it's obviously disgusting to abort a fetus".

Should we then allow the issue to be discussed? In some contexts, discussing a particular issue with a particular individual would be to give sanction to that individual and to that idea. I do not believe that context exists.

As for casual readers misunderstanding the content of Objectivism from reading this discussion. I can imagine someone doing so, but I do not see any evidence that this is likely. I, for instance, visit Christian forums. When I read a set of posts by a member there, do I label that as "the Christian viewpoint"? Of course not; not unless I intentionally want to misrepresent the Christian position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that disgusts me more than jrs' posts is that they were allowed to be on this forum. A question for the admins: What exactly is the policy for advocates of disturbing views? Would you tolerate someone saying child sex should be legal?

Neither Oakes nor anyone else of whom I am aware has provided any proof that my position on this issue is false or that my argument is invalid or that either my position or my argument is repugnant to Objectivism. If Oakes has such a proof, let him make a rational argument.

But this amounts to an appeal to emotion and an attempt to blackmail the administrators into censoring an argument which offends his prejudices.

And lumping my position in with the advocacy of child sex is a "package deal" fallacy.

... even allowing people to make these kinds of arguments might suggest to casual readers that it is something rational people can disagree on.

I understand that the forum should be open to people with mistaken views - hell, I'm sure my own mistaken views still exist in the archives of this forum. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Rational people can and do disagree on matters of Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics which are far more fundamental and important than this issue. But how are rational people supposed to arrive at the truth, if my rational arguments are censored because of your prejudices?

... emotions are not tools of cognition; ...

An emotion that clashes with your reason, an emotion that you cannot explain or control, is only the carcass of that stale thinking which you forbade your mind to revise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify:

1) I don't mean to sound like I'm taking it out on the mods and admins; I may just have an unusually low threshold for bad ideas. I understand the difference between being mistaken and being evasive, but I find it hard to stomache this topic either way.

2) I didn't mean to imply that this topic is outside the scope of reason. What I did hopefully imply was that some topics take so few integrations to get right, only unreasonable people could go the other way. Maybe I misjudged this one? softwareNerd says this is no more obvious than abortion, which I hope is not true, since I was once mistaken on abortion as well. Never have I doubted whether parental negligence should be punishable by law.

3) Lastly, I didn't mean to imply that jrs is an advocate of child sex, although s/he may think I lumped the two topics together. Now that it's been mentioned, though, I do wonder if someone who ignores the differences in the essential nature of adults and children - arguing that children must fend for themselves just like adults if they are abandoned - would have any argument at all against treating children like adults in other areas of the law.

Again, I love this forum and respect most people in it, and I'll even concede that these arguments might have value if nobody's evading, but I don't think I'd run the policy the same way at all. The post on page one was so explicit I found it hard to concentrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd welcome a broader discussion about what should and should not be allowed, given the objectives of the forum,... and how ...and with what tone,...or with what "Viewer Discretion Advised" warnings... any ideas. Rather than do so in the body of this thread, I suggest we use the "Forum Atmosphere" thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The post on page one was so explicit I found it hard to concentrate.

Oakes.... WHICH post on page one???

I'd just like to gently remind you that this is the second time you've complained about/attacked an unnamed person or persons in this thread. Now from context, I am 90% sure that you are talking about Jrs... but it is actually against forum rules to engage in that sort of attack. (One in which the target of your attack is not named or not named specifically)

The ironic part is that while I agree that Jrs has a screw loose, it is actually you who qualify for moderator intervention here.

And, Jrs, I'd just like to add that I don't detect any malicious intent on your part, so I'm not accusing you of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

WHICH post on page one???

Post #9. I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious.

I'd just like to gently remind you that this is the second time you've complained about/attacked an unnamed person or persons in this thread.

With all your emphasis on specificity, you've failed to specify when my first offense was. You didn't say a peep to me after my first two posts. If my qualifying for moderator intervention is ironic, this is irony on a whole new level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm calling a brief time out on this thread to give the mods a chance to step back and review a proper course of action before the off-topic discussion really gets out of hand. This should not be taken as implying any improper conduct on anyone's part, though we might decide that upon review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

With all your emphasis on specificity, you've failed to specify when my first offense was. You didn't say a peep to me after my first two posts. If my qualifying for moderator intervention is ironic, this is irony on a whole new level.

You're a little confused. I wasn't speaking of "specificity" as an isolated abstract. I was referring to your failure to specify WHO you were accusing. I wasn't complaining about not mentioning which post in particular of his you meant.

And, even if you want to complain that I wasn't being specific enough, I challenge that claim. You had posted three times in this thread when I made that comment, which said that you had "two times" committed that violation. By the math, it shouldn't be too confusing for you. (BTW, I meant your first and third post)

Now, if you were just being silly, then a smiley face was in order. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had posted three times in this thread when I made that comment, which said that you had "two times" committed that violation. By the math, it shouldn't be too confusing for you. (BTW, I meant your first and third post)

I mentioned jrs in my first post. I don't see how I left anyone unnamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned jrs in my first post. I don't see how I left anyone unnamed.

It appears that things have shifted around a bit since then, so I don't think that statement makes sense now. It's going to be the first two in this thread, which is actually #2 and 3 of the original. Sorry, Oakes.

Also, so you know, just because I was pointing out that, technically speaking, you "qualified" for moderator intervention, that doesn't mean that I was suggesting anyone actually do it. I hope nobody thought that!

Edited by Inspector
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...