AutoJC Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Thanks to a link from the Capitalism forum, I'm here. I am AutoJC, the username of an architect from Southern New England. I addition to here, I also post at forums related to my profession, as well as the Capitalism Forum, MacNN's Political War forum (where I post as saab95), Macaddict's MiniThink, Fubar forums, and Ihateapple.com. I also have my own website and forum I am elated that someone took the time and effort to concoct a forum for us capitalists and objectivists. I consider myself a staunch laissez-faire capitalist, a non-conformist who is strong on his belief of freedom of choice, which is my recurring theme. I'd like to extend my deepest thanks to those who made the effort to get such a forum on the Internet. And I look forward to participating in the many discussions here. Already, I find favor with the fact that this forum doesn't have a ten minute timeout policy between posts. I find such a timeout serves to inhibit free discussion on the various topics on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invictus Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Welcome aboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 I'd like to extend my deepest thanks to those who made the effort to get such a forum on the Internet. You're welcome :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted May 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 You're welcome :-) Once again I'd like to extend my thanks and appreciation to you and the other admins. I know that putting up with me can be a trying experience, as I don't always accept items as "blind faith." One of the aspects of Objectivism is that it affords us all the opportunity to challenge those beliefs that have been held as tradition, i.e. leader vs. follower, patrician vs. plebeian, the privileged, man as a self-sacrificing being, among other things. Moreover, and most important, Objectivism is the philosophy that favors life and the living! It favors the pursuit of happiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted May 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 In the heading of this post it appears to ask for volunteers. It's not clear as to how, but I assume that it means for the purposes of assisting the admins here, i.e. moderation. So in the spirit of strengthening the very noble purpose of this fine forum, I'd like to volunteer as a moderator for this forum. Thanks for your consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 AutoJC, it's a crying shame that you have been banned. I will admit that the contention of yours about this forum being a sounding board for Republicans is a bit over the top, though. But many of your other challenges remain to be answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 AutoJC, it's a crying shame that you have been banned. I will admit that the contention of yours about this forum being a sounding board for Republicans is a bit over the top, though. I agree with you regarding AJC's banning, and I am about to be banned for the same reason. If it is over the top, why was he banned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 If it is over the top, why was he banned? Perhaps for making over-the-top contentions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Perhaps for making over-the-top contentions? And you should have seen the over-the-top emails I got from him for banning him. Of course, they just further confirmed my reasons for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 And you should have seen the over-the-top emails I got from him for banning him. Of course, they just further confirmed my reasons for doing so. People do strange things when they get insulted. I am sure AJC has the same faults that we all have. Although, I am not so sure it is a fault to make an error when something is not understood becasue if it were not for the error, you would have no reason to question what isn't understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragn Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Slave wrote: People do strange things when they get insulted. I doubt that AutoJC acted like a troll simply because he felt insulted. As far as this forum being for Republicans, I see plenty of criticisms of Bush and Republicans in general. It sounds like a smear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 AutoJC smeared with a smile -- over and over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I doubt that AutoJC acted like a troll simply because he felt insulted. As far as this forum being for Republicans, I see plenty of criticisms of Bush and Republicans in general. It sounds like a smear to me. I used to post on other forums that were packed with every sort of deviant human you could imagine. I was always called a troll. What is a troll? Is it possible that its use is equivalent to Isolationist, Soccer mom, Nascar dad (defintions by non-essentials). If so, tell me why explicitly why you did not like the content of his posts? Because he said that someoe was for a conserivtive, Bush? I remember seeing a response in that thread where admin stated exactly what AJC stated, they are Bush supporters. What is so offensive about what is evident and agreed upon? Why are you insisting that A does not =A. AJC said it does, and the Admin said they do. Don't kill the messenger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Why are you insisting that A does not =A. AJC said it does, and the Admin said they do. Don't kill the messenger! I just realized what is happening. You are asking him not to draw his own conclusions. Major premise) Conservatives votes for Bush. Minor premise) An administrator votes for Bush. Predicate) An administrator is a conservative. This is what AJC deduced. What is so evil about his deduction? It makes sense! To be offended by someone making such a deduction leaves the offended in a postion to explain how this is a bad deduction. Instead of the childish antics of name calling, lets us get to the fundamentals! What is so offensive about his dedution? If you explain it to me, I will be grateful! Better yet, if you had explained it to AJC he would probably would have retracted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvkormes Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 (edited) Major premise) Conservatives votes for Bush. Minor premise) An administrator votes for Bush. Predicate) An administrator is a conservative. This is what AJC deduced. What is so evil about his deduction? It makes sense! To be offended by someone making such a deduction leaves the offended in a postion to explain how this is a bad deduction. This is a great example of the fallacy of undistributed middle. See: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/undismid.html for a description of the fallacy. Let me use an argument of the same form but with different content to show why this is ridiculous. Major Premise: Objectivists support capitalism. Minor Premise: A conservative supports capitalism. Conclusion: A conservative is an Objectivist. That an Objectivist chooses to vote Republican in a given election (or in general) does not make him a conservative, nor does it even mean that he agrees with the whole of the Republican platform. It simply means that he prefers the Republican platform and/or candidate over that of the opposition. I generally vote Republican because even though Republicans are usually religious, I am generally less afraid of religionists than of socialists. In *America,* as opposed to Iran, I believe that a theocracy would be very difficult to implement. Advancing socialism has proven to be rather easy--we're already well on the road to it with our welfare state. So, given this state of affairs, I generally vote Republican and thus I voted that way in this poll. What bothered me about AutoJC was his apparent inability to understand that being a Bush supporter does not require one to approve of Bush's whole program or of the religionists in general. To be a Bush supporter, one need merely prefer him to his opponent. As of now, that's my take on things. I must say that plenty of Objectivists disagree, and some do so *very* strongly. [Edit by mvkormes: What Objectivists disagree about, to be precise, is whether one should support Bush. I don't think they'd disagree that one need not approve of Bush's whole program to support him. There is *no* candidate and *no* party that an Objectivist can fully support (without making any qualifications, that is) today, so if an Objectivist chooses to vote at all, it is on the principle of "the lesser of two (or more) evils." And, for those newbies who think the Libertarian Party is nifty, don't get me started on what's wrong with the LP! Read Peter Schwartz's article "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty."] But what AutoJC apparently failed to grasp is that preferring Republicans or Bush as the lesser of two evils does not make one a religious conservative. Edited June 22, 2004 by mvkormes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 People do strange things when they get insulted. I am sure AJC has the same faults that we all have. Speak for yourself about having faults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 AutoJC used very insulting language to refer to those arguing for Bush. He ignored pointed questions, and those he did choose to answer, he did so by slandering the person asking the question. When certain facts were brought to out against his argument, he either gave them a cursory dismissal, without saying why (other than offering another smear), or he just ignored the fact altogether. There is a way to argue respectfully and he certainly didn't use it. To those who would defend his methods, I strongly suggest that, if you value participating on this board, you do no imitate him because you will meet with with same response. No rational person will put up with such behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 AutoJC used very insulting language to refer to those arguing for Bush. Absolute nonsense. Where did he ever slander anyone specific? What was his "insulting language?" How was his language against Bush et al any less "insulting" that it was to Kerry? AutoJC was given the ultimate smackdown for speaking his mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Absolute nonsense. Where did he ever slander anyone specific? What was his "insulting language?" How was his language against Bush et al any less "insulting" that it was to Kerry? AutoJC was given the ultimate smackdown for speaking his mind. AutoJC's reasoning was filled with context-dropping, his posts were often little more than smears of those who disagreed with him as "the Republican plants here on these forums" or such. There are plenty more such quotes from him available in the archives. Either prove that these smears were justified, or retract your (silly) allegation that he was "given the ultimate smackdown for speaking his own mind" (or at least explain exactly what that's supposed to mean ), or you will be given a warning. Those are your options. I will not continue to discuss this issue in this manner any longer. Give some evidence, or shut up. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.