The smell of religious doctrines

[Inspector]

For one to legitimately claim that a person is speaking dogmatically, one has to know what the other person's argument is - not simply that they didn't provide the argument.

[added grammatical clarification; for original text, see post]

Agreed. Someone providing a partial argument, or even a snarky partial argument does not dogmatism make. While some answers are more helpful to a person who is genuinely interested in learning the error of their ways, that does not make the less helpful answers dogmatic, as such.

I know that the former are really the ones I'm supposed to give, but I don't always do it. Sometimes, I will give a shorter or more flip answer because I think the poster's interest is not genuine and/or I think they have behaved badly and deserve a good telling-off. David may have been doing this. Then again, maybe he wasn't and he was employing his very dry sense of humor. (which I enjoy) The appropriate response is, "Why would you do that, David?" to which he no doubt has a reply ready. But knowing him, he won't employ his response unless you ask. To dismiss him as Dogmatic not only isn't true, it also deprives you of his wit.

Say, necrovore, so long as we're all supposed to be Dogmatists, I may as well ask about something I've been meaning to for a while...

Out of curiosity, what is the deal with your username and avatar? I mean, "necrovore" means "eater of the dead," as far as I know, which seems like an attempt to offend someone and the crude child's drawing seems to be mocking something... what exactly I don't know. They make you resemble the 11 year old anarchist/communist trolls that I often have to ban from the board I moderate. You wouldn't happen to be an anarchist, would you? If not, then why are you projecting the image of one?

[KendallJ]

This sounds like the opposite of the onus of proof principle as presented in chapter 5 of OPAR. A single statement in isolation can appear arbitrary (and thus dogmatic) to the person who does not already know how to prove it.

The reference in OPAR simply demands that someone not try to disprove an arbitrary assertion. That is, do not try to argue with an arbitrary assertion. It doesn't say that you can't ask for substantiation of said assertion. My use of the word "incumbent" may be misleading.

As SN already said, a single unsupported assertion does not in any way appear arbitrary. It is indeterminant.

"Assertion X because Ayn Rand said so [and no other reason]." is dogma.

"Assertion X because [rational explanation to follow]." is rational.

"Assertion X." is indeterminant. One doesn't know whether it is dogmatic or not because the rationale for the assertion has not been given.

[DavidOdden]

Can you see the difference? The first post states a position without giving the reasons for it; the second post outlines its reasoning.

I understand now: you didn't understand what I said, and why I said it. Let me try to apply the approach to see if I understand it, so that I can identify other forms of dogmatism.

A statistic can be a valid statement, but it is technically not a generalization or a concept.

No reasoning is given to support the dogmatic assertion.

One cannot achieve good by means of evil.

No reasoning is given to support the dogmatic assertion.

If no one can show me why I am wrong, I must be right.

No reasoning is given to support the dogmatic assertion.

Copying for oneself is no more an infringement of the copyright owner's rights than is memorizing.

No reasoning is given to support the dogmatic assertion. So anyhow, it looks like dogma abounds here. Shame on us for not always providing long-winded hair-splitting rationalizations of all of our statements. The reason why it's shameful is that all readers deserve to know why you are making the claim you're making, when they fail to come up with the evidence on their own, or fail to make the logical connections on their own. The reason why all readers deserve to have their needs, wants and desires satisfied is because thinking is hard, and besides it's inconvenient for a person to have to ask for clarification or evidence, if a statement isn't obvious to the reader. The reason why we should pander to the cognitive limitations of the alternatively enabled is that it is only fair to do so. The reason why it's fair is... oh, crap. Dogma.

[necrovore]

Say, necrovore, so long as we're all supposed to be Dogmatists, I may as well ask about something I've been meaning to for a while...

Out of curiosity, what is the deal with your username and avatar? I mean, "necrovore" means "eater of the dead," as far as I know, which seems like an attempt to offend someone and the crude child's drawing seems to be mocking something... what exactly I don't know. They make you resemble the 11 year old anarchist/communist trolls that I often have to ban from the board I moderate. You wouldn't happen to be an anarchist, would you? If not, then why are you projecting the image of one?

This is a gross misrepresentation of the statements I have made earlier in this thread, followed by an ad hominem attack (on my avatar, but an ad hominem nevertheless). I submit that this is in violation of the Forum Rules: "a touch of sarcasm directed at issues is sometimes appropriate, after laying the groundwork in a particular piece of writing. However, a post laden with sarcasm is not appropriate, particularly when directed at a person's character. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster."

[Inspector]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the statements I have made earlier in this thread, followed by an ad hominem attack (on my avatar, but an ad hominem nevertheless). I submit that this is in violation of the Forum Rules: "a touch of sarcasm directed at issues is sometimes appropriate, after laying the groundwork in a particular piece of writing. However, a post laden with sarcasm is not appropriate, particularly when directed at a person's character. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster."

It was not in the least bit sarcastic, nor was it an ad hominem, nor did it misrepresent any of your statements as far as I know.

I would really like to know what the deal is with your forum name and avatar. It is not meant as an attack on your positions or character, just something really strange that I happened to want to know about.

I acknowledged the irony of asking it here in the sentence preceding the last paragraph, which as such you should recognize is tongue-in-cheek...

So... what's the deal with your forum name and avatar?

Edited March 11, 2007 by Inspector

[KendallJ]

"Assertion X because Ayn Rand said so [and no other reason]." is dogma.

"Assertion X because [rational explanation to follow]." is rational.

"Assertion X." is indeterminant. One doesn't know whether it is dogmatic or not because the rationale for the assertion has not been given.

I was thinking about what I said last night, and why I responded forcefully to Steve's original charge of dogamatism.

I can think of two kinds of people who read the last statement as dogmatism. Those who are simply mistaken (i.e. those who infer the first quote from the last), and those who take it as dogmatism on principle that is, skeptics (or subjectivists). Those who assert (ironically they do it with much certainty) that a clear statement of certainty must be dogmatic because no one can know anything for sure, or because it is simply "all made up to suit our own whim".

Necrovore, if you are arguing that the appearance of dogmatism should be toned down so that those who are mistaken won't run away, I would argue that those who are mistaken usually ask for substantiation. But it is those who are skeptics who don't need to ask for substantiation. They can charge dogmatism without asking and usually do. I could tone down my language for the first type, but I specifically will never tone it down for the 2nd (which is why I don't tone it down for anyone).

To that end I would point you to Steve Cook's very first post in the thread that he originally complained about. I'll quote the entire thing so as to make sure I get it right. All bold is mine.

I am an atheist and I think that that without God...all values are baseless. don't misunderstand me...some values serve a pragmatic function wich is why they persist across time. For example, I choose to behave in such a way as to ensure my family fare well in the world. I do this, though, becuase it serves the selfish interets of the genes we share. I choose to behave well to my neighbour in an effort to encourage him to reciprocate. Again, at a more fundamental level, I am statistically unlikely to have sex with my sister for genetic reasons similar to the ones cited earlier. There are others.

In a universe without God, none of the above morality has any intinsic value or maining. The universe doesn't care if I copulate with my sister or murder my family. I may care. But this is only because I have a genetic imperative driving me to do so. Alternatively, I may choose, for reasons philisophical, to behave in certain ways that conform to a code of conduct I, or someone else has invented. This last reason is the most noble since it is really based on a dream. However, the dream is one that is voluntarily entered into. An atheist must, if he or she is honest, re-invent his or her morality each day when they consciously re-enter the world. The universe couldn't care less if they chose not to. This is, surely, superior to the morality of a person of religion. Such a person is also dreaming, but is too blind to know that they are.

and then he clarifies...

when i say that "the universe couldn't care less whther I choose to behave in any particular way...I should also have added... there is no particular reason why I should care either....but, of course I do. For most people, choosing to care is based on either:

1) a fear of religioius consequences

2) a gentic imperative

3) a philisophically based and, thus, invented, code of conduct.

Number 1 is an unconscious social or personal invention (in other words...a dishonest lie) that allows the individual to absolve themselves of responsibility for their action

Number 2 is based upon a real absolution of responsibility and so cannot really be regarded as being the basis for moral behaviour

Number 3 is the only form of behaviour that can be regard as being truly moral.....even if it is merely a conscious invention (in other words...an honest lie)

To the first person who offers a challenge to his thinking he opens with...

Forgive me..I must be misunderstanding you...You can't actually be trying to suggests that a moral code is based upon an objective reality can you?

I thought he was exagerating his response, but no, he really meant that.

I would submit to you that while SteveCook may not be an all and out skeptic, certainly his philosophy is tinged with either subjectivism or skepticism. Which is why he was so quick to charge dogmatism, and leave.

I'm not on a mission here to convert people (even is someone wants to think I'm a high priest), and I do not intend to "tone down" my language so that a skeptic can overcome his own issues and ultimately stick around and "see the light". The people who come here with big philosophical differences (whether mistaken or not) leave quickly. They leave as a result of the premises they hold. In my response to Steve in that thread I tried to identify the issue (without getting personal) as succinctly as I could see it and explain the Objectivist position.

What you are describing is pure subjectivism. Religion is intrinsicist in nature. Objectivism rejects the subjective - intrinsic dichotomy, in favor of an absolute moral code based upon objective reality.

I gave him an out there, essentially saying "there is a third perspective that you may not have considered."

To that, from the person who is self-described seeker of challenging ideas, I got...... silence.

Edited March 11, 2007 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the statements I have made earlier in this thread, ...

Yes, I agree that you never said that "we're all supposed to be dogmatists". Kinda funny that Inspector would say that when you specifically chose a post by him as an example of the opposite! It would be rather ironic if this thread itself turn into a flame war.

... followed by an ad hominem attack (on my avatar, but an ad hominem nevertheless).

I think "necrovore" is a fun name, and I find the avatar rather sweet and benevolent.

Necrovore, I submit that you are not deluded. What you have observed is something real. However, you're making a mistake in calling it dogmatism. The tone of this board has much more "challenge" in it than some, far less challenge than others. I remember Jennifer once comparing it to hazing. Oddly enough, in the bigger picture, this tone of challenge usually works in favor of the people being hazed, but only if they try to think through their errors and if they do not walk away in disgust as Steve Cook did.

[KendallJ]

Necrovore, I submit that you are not deluded. What you have observed is something real. However, you're making a mistake in calling it dogmatism. The tone of this board has much more "challenge" in it than some, far less challenge than others. I remember Jennifer once comparing it to hazing. Oddly enough, in the bigger picture, this tone of challenge usually works in favor of the people being hazed, but only if they try to think through their errors and if they do not walk away in disgust as Steve Cook did.

I would agree. I can think of boards where the moderator might spew every explative in the book in response to a dumb idea, and those where all hazing is banned (except that done by the moderator himself )

I think hazing makes it sound arbitrary. My purpose in challenge is to determine if someone has something I want to trade with. The more someone helps me understand their background, and what perspective they hold quickly, the more appreciative (and engaging) I am. To me, it's a compliment on this board when you show up, make one post, and lots of people flock to that post to respond to it, even if its a bit challenging. It says, "look at all the people who are interested to find out if I'm worth trading with." Maybe we overwhelm people with our enthusiasm, but that seems to me like a good thing.

Someone who jumps right in to me is sort of like someone you've never met who jumps into a conversation at a party. I don't mind that at all. As long as you don't expect us to divert the conversation to your needs so we can take the time to bring you up to speed. To me, that is rude. If one wants to jump right in, great! we'd love to have you. Roll up your sleeves, catch on quickly, and let's go. It'll be fun! If you don't want to do that, then great too! Introduce yourself, stick around, watch and learn. Jump in whenever you feel comfortable.

Edited March 11, 2007 by KendallJ

[necrovore]

I don't think hazing is ever Objectively justified. Personal attacks -- or the ascription of views to me that are not mine -- lead me less to question my own views and more to question the character of the people opposing them in such a manner. They also make this board less of a value for me and, if the people doing the hazing would really think about it, it makes the board less of a value for them.

If people disagree with me, that's fine. If they can say why, even better. It is not necessarily dogmatic if they don't say why, but when they make attacks instead it can come across as "for those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, none is possible" -- and hazing does have an air of dogmatism about it; it is as close as you can come, over the Internet, to saying "I'm going to bash your brains in, to assist you in using them."

Only a rational argument can cause me to change my views. I expect that only a rational argument on my part will change anyone else's. Sometimes people (including me) can be thick-headed and stubborn, so that even a rational argument may not work right away; if you have presented your rational argument but it hasn't appeared to work, try waiting. The light may turn on later. Besides, a position, once stated, isn't going anywhere; the person may read it later and "get it" then; in the meantime it will be there for anyone else who has the question it answers.

I've tried very hard to avoid dogmatism in all my posts, I think successfully, and I certainly haven't hazed anybody.

I do not intend my nick or avatar to offend anyone. The stories behind them are irrelevant to this thread, but might be amusing. Maybe someday.

[Inspector]

Yes, I agree that you never said that "we're all supposed to be dogmatists". Kinda funny that Inspector would say that when you specifically chose a post by him as an example of the opposite!

I thought it was pretty funny. That's why I said it. I wasn't referring to Necrovore's comment with that; I was referring to Steve Cook's.

It would be rather ironic if this thread itself turn into a flame war.I think "necrovore" is a fun name, and I find the avatar rather sweet and benevolent.

Nothing could be sweeter than the eater of the dead. Still no explanation for what is up with that, I notice...

I do not intend my nick or avatar to offend anyone. The stories behind them are irrelevant to this thread, but might be amusing. Maybe someday.

So have someone split it off! Come on, I bet they're good stories...

[softwareNerd]

Nothing could be sweeter than the eater of the dead.

I didn't say it was sweet, it sounded like a fun name to me. Makes me envision an avenger destroying the living dead, i.e. those who have a philosophy of death. Of course, that's just in my mind. For all I know, it's actually some bizzare satanic allusion. I don't care, one way or the other. Now, if it was something like Galt-vore, I might be hassled.

I don't think hazing is ever Objectively justified. Personal attacks -- or the ascription of views to me that are not mine -- lead me less to question my own views and more to question the character of the people opposing them in such a manner.

The type of post I was referring to was not a post with personal attacks, but a post written with a challenging tone. For instance, if someone posts: "I don't in believe in God, but I think one can't be sure he does not exist", then one way to reply would be to explain about the arbitrary, but another way would be to reply, "Well, as for me I don't in believe in Leprechauns, but I think one can't be sure they don't exist". There's no personal attack in that type of response, but some people find it upsetting. Why do they find it upsetting though? I guess they think something along the lines of "that response is just being silly, and trivializing what I said". In truth, it is simply an argument by analogy, and they're the ones who aren't thinking straight; they're the ones who are taking some premise so much for granted that they do not even see the connection.

Secondly, responses usually match the post, as I explained in an earlier post w.r.t. the one example being discussed. A differently-worded post would bring a differently worded response.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there are other posters who are often dogmatic. However, in my judgement, David O. isn't one of them -- indeed is as far from that stereotype as I can imagine. The folks who are, are so because of their own lack of understanding.

I wouldn't disagree that the tone on OO.net is more challenging than on some other forums, and that it can be a bit "noisy" at times (while far les noisy than some of the newsgroups out there). I think most of this flows from the forums's policy of allowing non-Objectivists and of allowing people to push the envelope. I know this puts off some Objectivists who aren't interested in arguing about things they've resolved long ago, and who really rather have a place where they can primarily share values with other Objectivists. If someone can figure out how to combine the two in a single board without also curbing heated debate, that would be of great value.

Finally, you can choose almost any long-time member and find a few of their posts where they were obviously irritated and a bit rude; but, I'm speaking of patterns here.

Edited March 12, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Inspector]

I didn't say it was sweet, it sounded like a fun name to me.

I know you said the avatar was sweet, but it rhymes better this way.

Makes me envision an avenger destroying the living dead

-vore doesn't mean "destroy;" it means "eat." But if you find the rotting flesh of the dead to be delicious, then of course it all makes perfect sense. And I'm not hassled. I'm curious, and since he's acting all sensitive about it, and furthermore impugning me unjustly, I'm going to have as much fun with this as possible.

...still waiting on that explanation.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Inspector

[softwareNerd]

...still waiting on that explanation.

Frankly, I don't see why you should expect one after the way you asked.

[Inspector]

Frankly, I don't see why you should expect one after the way you asked.

He's the one projecting the image that looks for all the world like a deliberate attempt to mock or offend someone. If he's so sensitive about how it was asked that he leaves it a mystery, then that's his prerogative. I'm certainly not going to hold his hand and pat his head while cooing gently.

I was being truthful when I stated what his chosen name and avatar implied to me, although I did not think that was what he meant to imply with them. Certainly given the fact that his posts on philosophical topics have so far been sensible, I'd say there's a fair chance that there's a reasonable explanation, but I left that part ambiguous on purpose: I suspected he would overreact to it and take the whole thing too far, just like he does his paranoia about dogmatism. Just like with David's statements, rather than asking for clarification or following up with the poster, he made some assumptions and whined about it.

I had no idea I would be so correct about it that he would actually call for me to be moderated. But it certainly confirms my suspicion. Really, the layers of irony are thick enough that I may soon require a machete.

And yes, given that I didn't do anything even close to what he accused me of, and no rescinding of said accusation has occurred, I will continue to have jolly good fun with this.

[Thales]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the statements I have made earlier in this thread, followed by an ad hominem attack (on my avatar, but an ad hominem nevertheless).

I'm disappointed you didn't respond to David Odden's excellent posting (post #28) here: clicky.

He made the point very well, I thought. It got right to the essence of your original accusation, and yet you just skipped by it.

Dogma while common isn't nearly as common as your typical skeptic thinks it is. Every assertion is not dogmatic, and to treat them that way would mean paralyzing thought completely, because we could never draw any conclusions about anything.

The important thing is to be able to logically tie ones ideas down to reality. That’s the test of the validity of an idea. If you can’t do that, then you shouldn’t assert it as fact.

Anyway, you might want to take a crack at David’s excellent posting.

[DarkWaters]

Sure you want to miss the kool-aid?

Contrary to popular belief, Jim Jones gave his followers cyanide-laced Flavor-aid, not Kool-aid.

[Antonio]

Surely, David is having a bit of fun with his 10,000 word essay requirement. I read it as being humorous. The particular dogmatic-sounding words are really saying: "hey, I can match your arbitrary assertions with assertions of my own; so there!". The idea is that the opponent will re-think and start to offer reasons, which can then be countered. The second post takes a different tack, by empathizing with the opponent, etc. So, yes, the styles (or "tone") in those two posts are very different, but I don't think dogma was implied.

In addition, one cannot judge a forum post the same way one judges a more comprehensive article. A post is one "transaction" in an ongoing dialog. Sometimes one simply challenges an opponent in a particular way that might sound dogmatic if viewed in isolation.

The problem that I and others had with the kind of reply that David made was that it didn't respond to the real-life situation that Mr. Weiss put forth. Yes, most of us here would love a world without the weights of irrational laws and illogical beliefs and limitations on our freedoms. But we live in a world where we have to deal with those annoyances and still manage to make a living and protect our property.

I had folks telling me I was wrong for testifying at a county subdivision board meeting where I wanted the panel to make sure issues such as drainage, construction traffic and noise and most importantly compensation for use and care of our private road that the county forces us to maintain as a public easement. All this because the county planning review system is immoral.

Perhaps, but it's there and I'm not about to give up without a fight when another property owner tried to use the system to her advantage to profit off of my and other homeowners' investments. That's real life. And I have to exist within it while still being able to sleep at night that I am acting honorably and morally. Such dogmatic responses don't help, rather they distract. They add heat, not light.

Another disturbing incidence of this kind took place around election time in the fall when anyone who did not vote Democrat (or did not vote at all) was branded as being immoral, illogical and therefore not an Objectivist nor understanding of Rand's works - this even if one agreed with the premise of Leonard Peikhoff's arguments on the subject, but not the conclusion.

[Antonio]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the statements I have made earlier in this thread, followed by an ad hominem attack (on my avatar, but an ad hominem nevertheless). I submit that this is in violation of the Forum Rules: "a touch of sarcasm directed at issues is sometimes appropriate, after laying the groundwork in a particular piece of writing. However, a post laden with sarcasm is not appropriate, particularly when directed at a person's character. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster."

I'm open minded and dead people are, well, dead, so they are no more. But "eater of the dead" is still pretty weird if it refers to humanoids. Granted, those of us who eat animal meat are eating dead flesh - unless there are some who are unspeakably eating animals while they are alive.

Avatars say a lot though really. I picked mine for a strong reason.

I rather liked the levity of asking about the avatar and username. I didn't think it was an attack, unless I'm misreading Inspector's intentions. Doing what I do for a living, my mind would split if I didn't have levity to deal with it.

Contrary to popular belief, Jim Jones gave his followers cyanide-laced Flavor-aid, not Kool-aid.

Now we have it. The real reason they died. Who wants the generic knockoff when you can have the real thing (not the be confused with the Coca-Cola trademark of the 1970s)?

Edited March 13, 2007 by Antonio

[Inspector]

I rather liked the levity of asking about the avatar and username.

Really, that is what I was going for. I figure, "hey, a thread about how we're all supposed to be Dogmatists" (Steve Cook's statement, not necrovore's); that would be a perfectly ironic place to ask about his avatar - you know, as if we are all required to have nothing but Nick Gaetano drawings.

But dang.

[Seeker]

you know, as if we are all required to have nothing but Nick Gaetano drawings.

Actually, our discussions about copyright made me change my avatar to an image in the public domain. In truth, I think that none of us should have Nick Gaetano drawings.

[Inspector]

Actually, our discussions about copyright made me change my avatar to an image in the public domain. In truth, I think that none of us should have Nick Gaetano drawings.

Hahaha! Double irony.

[hunterrose]

Only a rational argument can cause me to change my views. I expect that only a rational argument on my part will change anyone else's.

I've tried very hard to avoid dogmatism in all my posts, I think successfully.

I don't have a problem with saying there is a bit of fanboyism here and there. E.g. I've seen a person or two here who believed Kant was the Destroyer of Humanity, but have never so much as touched one of his books; a couple of (out-of-context??) excerpts by others who didn't like Kant were enough for them.

With that said, you're going to find that everywhere. There isn't any place, anywhere ('cept maybe the Gulch) where proving an argument is irrational will make everyone publicly renounce their disproven beliefs and acknowledge the superiority of your statements.

Are you saying that this forum is worse than other places of debate? Cause it seems like you're merely saying that this forum (of free admission) isn't composed 100% of 100% rational people.

Plus, as others have said, you might be using "dogmatism" a bit loosely. What evidence would it take to prove to you that this is not a hotbed of dogmatism? If there is nothing that could prove your charges of dogmatism to be false, then do the excerpts of posts you provided count as rational arguments?

Personally, I like your avatar/user name, but who am I to talk

[Nate]

Another disturbing incidence of this kind took place around election time in the fall when anyone who did not vote Democrat (or did not vote at all) was branded as being immoral, illogical and therefore not an Objectivist nor understanding of Rand's works - this even if one agreed with the premise of Leonard Peikhoff's arguments on the subject, but not the conclusion.

Rather than post off-topic regarding Antonio's paraphrasing of Leonard Peikoff, I'll just post the statement I think he is referring to.

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

[necrovore]

I'm open minded and dead people are, well, dead, so they are no more. But "eater of the dead" is still pretty weird if it refers to humanoids. Granted, those of us who eat animal meat are eating dead flesh - unless there are some who are unspeakably eating animals while they are alive.

"Few there are who will discuss cuisine with the Night People, but I see you have an interest." -- Tunesmith, in The Ringworld Throne by Larry Niven.

I picked my nick a long time ago; actually I picked it long before joining this board. I used it on IRC in the late 90s. I am an engineer and a fan of some of Larry Niven's work (the Ringworld books, The Integral Trees and The Smoke Ring, N-Space, Playgrounds of the Mind, and I also liked Fallen Angels, which Niven wrote with Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn.) I also tend to be up late at night. And I work with communications systems. And I compose music. The Ringworld species that stays up all night and has a communications system and plays music is the Night People, but they also eat dead people and have other characteristics which I don't share with them. But mostly Niven portrays them favorably.

It is notable also that Neal Stephenson has, in his essay "In the Beginning Was The Command Line," compared engineers to the Morlocks in H. G. Wells's The Time Machine. So, I guess by that standard I'm a Morlock.

I'm not accepting the standard; I'm laughing at it.

For all I know, it's actually some bizzare satanic allusion. I don't care, one way or the other. Now, if it was something like Galt-vore, I might be hassled.

Don't worry; no Night Person would ever eat John Galt, because John Galt will never die.

As to the avatar, well, I thought it would be better to have an avatar than not, and, also motivated by copyright reasons, I figured I'd draw my own. That way I own the copyright. I admit I am not a skilled artist. I did intend a genuine smile with it, not mockery. I suppose it may seem jarring compared to my nick; there is really no relation.

For the record, I do not think David Odden is a dogmatist. On this board, I see evidence against such a notion. (His avatar is a dog, but I don't think that proves anything.) Like I said, it's possible to write in a dogmatic form (or tone, if you prefer) without being a dogmatist.

I also think I alluded to his post when I said that I have taken great care to avoid dogmatism in my own posts. I did say that a requirement to reduce everything down to A is A (or, more accurately, to trace the hierarchy of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism) in every post is absurd. I am not asking for the absurd.

In the first case, I supported the statement in the rest of the same post. In the second case, I was amplifying a contradiction that had already been implied in a previous post, in order to make it obvious. In the fourth case, I had been trying to support the statement for the duration of the entire thread.

If I could take back one thing I ever said it would be this:

If no one can show me why I am wrong, I must be right.

What I meant was the same thing that I was saying here: that only with a rational argument can anyone have any hope of changing my mind. If I do not see such an argument, then as an adherent of reason I have little choice but to stick with my own position. It is not anyone's "duty" to persuade me of anything, but if they intend to do so, they have to do it by a specific means.

Finally, I'll add one more thing: I certainly don't think Leonard Peikoff is a dogmatist, because I've read his books, but I do think his statement about the election had that tone. It gave me the impression that he had been arguing about it with people a lot and was just exasperated. I think the statement was esoteric. It did prompt me to think of things that I might not have thought about otherwise, and I ended up agreeing with him, so I suppose it "worked" on me, but only because I was familiar enough with his previous work to trust him (hey, he's Leonard Peikoff!) and to try to figure out the reasoning on my own. Apparently a lot of other people were not able to do this.