Would Roark Invite Tooheyites?

[~Sophia~]

For example, I'm not sure your post 59 is clear, since, given the context of the discussion, we have a disagreement on when Sophia or you would say that an idea is immoral. It seems you would only say it is immoral if a person held it in his mind in direct contradiction to their understanding of the issue.

Not only but yes that is one of the reasons - people often are aware of some negative consequences of their actions and ideas and choose to evade this aspect of the issue because they want to hold on to their idea or continue their behaviour. Another reason could be that they evade certain aspects of reality - they choose not to acknowledge certain observations which are contradictory to their point of view. And then finally some people just choose not to think at all.

I think that is true when it comes to the moral evaluation of the person's character; however I think it is possible that one can advocate, say communism, as Andrei did, and that one could say that he was advocating an immoral idea -- i.e. communism in theory and in practice is immoral -- but still realize he could be advocating it on mistaken grounds.

But we evaluate person's character by morally evaluating their actions, conscious convictions, and ideas. Any moral statement about THEIR actions and ideas is a statment about their character and like I said the smaller the audience the more pointed your comments.

It is possible to explain to a person why a particular idea is destructive without attacking them personally - in fact that is the only way they will listen. If that was always your goal - you are intelligent and eloquent enough to be able to do it effectively without the undesired effects of insulting the other person.

But you are not satisfied with this - you are seeking justification for attacking/morally condemning members of an organization run by an Objectivist - those who perhaps are not Objectivists yet; those who are still on the fance about it; those who are still learning about it/integrating and finally anyone who is wrong - an Objectivist or not as was clear from your 2+2=22 example regardless of their mental process insted based on "man's life as the standard". You have essentially equated 2+2=22 comming from a child to a deadly disease which you have to protect yourself from.

Mr. Miovas - I assure you I understand you very well.

I think a lot of the talking past one another that we have going on is because you do not understand my position on ideas, and that one can and must morally evaluate them with regard to what they mean in theory and in practice; regardless of who is advocating them and regardless of whether or not the person advocating them is moral.

You can evaluate anything in any way you wish in your mind but when you start addressing people - the concept of justice becomes relevant.

A lot of the talking past one another and me repeating myself was a result of you not addressing my arguments instead asserting the same mistaken idea over and over as if no contradicting evidence was provided.

A rational man would be able to see that the ideas contained in his writings would necessarily lead to the destruction of independence for anyone who followed them; hence his ideas were very immoral; and even evil, since independence is a virtue and self-esteem is a primary value

.

A lot of ideas are very complex and you can not assume that everyone, especially those who have not been exposed to Objectivism have the same clarity and understanding about an issue as you. The only self-evident thing is the material of sensory perception. How much understanding one can assume is contexual - a lot less from a child - a lot more from an adult - with a great range of difference between adults.

[~Sophia~]

So, you are saying that I am intellectually dishonest because I disagree with your position. I still disagree with it, in the sense that I have been writing about throughout this thread; that is that one must and ought to morally evaluate ideas in the abstract and the people who advocate them taking their context into account.

No not because you simply disagree with me - there are many people who disagree with me on various issues whom I don't consider intelectually dishonest (example the tax thread). But you have experienced what your idea leads into in practice and I have explained to you the philosophical bases of your error.

Yes, I was kicked out of NTOS for morally evaluating ideas in the abstract. I think a lot of people do not understand what that means, and therefore take personal umbrage at me saying they are advocating an immoral idea.

You have been removed for your continuing lack of civility when addressing people, which is a known standard for participation in this organization and as a result of your confession:

And I have to confess that I have deliberately chosen to respond to some threads in such a way as keep them out.

I'm also proud of that.

(underline mine)

Also, because he has the same misunderstanding of the issues I have been raising in this thread that Sophia and KendallJ have. So, this thread and the whole debate are not just something that I arbitrarily attached to my removal from NTOS.

Did you miss the fact that the same principles are being followed on this forum - that we treat those who want to learn about Objectivism with civility - that we educate them without insulting them?

It may or may not have come from David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden, but it is the same thing.

This is another dishonest statement. Kelley's idea of moral neutrality of ideas and thus advocating moral toleration toward people like Marx or Kant is clearly an opposite position to mine. My whole argument was based on the fact that ideas reflect on the people who originate them.

Because you don't allow in your mind for the possibility of you being mistaken about Objectivism - you have this false dichotomy in your mind that if someone is speaking against your point of view that they are/must be anti-Objectivists.

Edited May 20, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

The issues I have been raising are central to an understanding of Objectivism. And I think that if one is going to run an Objectivist organization -- whether it be a board or a social function -- then one ought to have an intellectual understanding of Objectivism; and be able to back up that understanding.

It is the owner of an organization or a board who decides whom to allow to participate and what are the rules of participation. If you don't like it - don't join.

Why don't you form your own group?

As to your "the owner ought to have an intellectual understanding of Objectivism" - not necessarily - it depends on the purpose of an organization - if it is a social club it maybe enough to provide means for people of similar views to meet and discuss ideas. It depends on context and it is the OWNER who decides the purpose of his organization.

You are also being quiet insulting here - and this is exactly why you have been removed from NTOS - for insulting people while pretending you are talking "in the abstract".

If you don't then you will be condemning the best advocates of Objectivism as being too harsh and "speaking down to people."

You are flattering yourself. And creating another false dichotomy. As I have said in my post #11 here:

The requirement of maintaining a certain level of civility in a debate is in no way limiting one's freedom of expressing a disagreement or advocating right ideas. One can be critical and forthright yet civil and respectful (one of the characteristics of a good teacher).

When people don't want to have anything more to do with you - you are not being an effective advocate of Objectivism. Nothing what I read about NTOS indicates that you were prevented from spreading right ideas - you just were prevented from being uncivil toward other members.

Edited May 20, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Since none of us know all the details about NTOS, I think the only way this conversation can remain polite and productive is if we use the particular idea that was being advocated as a good real-world example, but stay away from discussing the particular real-world people in NTOS.

I agree, which is why I didn't start this thread as, "Is NTOS an Objectivist organization?" You wouldn't have the context unless you were involved, for the most part, because the organizer hasn't written even a position paper on some of the issues. He has taken a stance by implication of kicking me out in the context of me wanting to keep out Kelleyites and Brandenites -- he chose them over me -- but he hasn't explicitly stated that he is for David Kelley or Nathaniel Branden qua "Objectivists."

Besides, the thread on NTOS was closed.

However, one can still discuss the principles involved, which is what I have been doing. And I've already stated that my original questions that started this thread may not have been formulated as well as I could do it now, after the debate is well under way.

Since Fact and Value was explicitly written against David Kelley's position, and since Dr. Peikoff has explained why David Kelley's position with regard to not being able to morally evaluate people based on their ideas or not being able to morally evaluate ideas in the abstract is a repudiation of Objectivism, I think David Kelley is a better example than Nathaniel Branden.

Because David Kelley's stance repudiates Objectivism, and because Objectivism does take a stance that ideas have to be morally evaluated, once one understands that one has to say that David Kelley's ideas are immoral in the abstract, regardless of whether or not one thinks that Kelley himself is immoral -- i.e. morally evaluating people based on their ideas is a crucial aspect of Objectivism. To not do that flies in the face of the reality of the power of ideas; the power of ideas to convince people who accept them to do what the ideas advocate. What David Kelley is advocating is that we refrain from taking intellectual methodology into account when morally evaluating someone -- i.e. we shouldn't take into account if they are rational or not. Rationality as the primary virtue is the cornerstone of the Objectivist ethics. To repudiate that means that one also repudiates the nature of man and that he survives by the use of his mind, so long as he is rational. The intellectual methodology is evident in what someone advocates and the way they advocate it, which Kelley denies. His ideas are immoral because he advocates that we should not morally judge people based on their ideas; and by at least implication, that some philosophies -- i.e. Kantianism -- cannot be considered to be immoral because of their effects of rendering the mind not being connected to reality in any manner whatsoever, once accepted.

Now, that is quite a lot to take in, especially if one is new to Objectivism and to philosophy in general. So I certainly would not say that someone just coming across Objectivism is immoral if they do not understand this issue. Nonetheless, the idea in the abstract that one ought not to take someone's ideas into account when morally evaluating them is immoral.

The question then becomes: "How much studying of Objectivism will lead one to realize that taking someone ideas into account ought to be part of their moral evaluation of that person?" I think probably only a few years of series study, if not sooner. It's just not that difficult to grasp, especially in the context of Ayn Rand's novels.

Now, the question of whether or not one can morally evaluate ideas in the abstract is a more difficult question to consider. That is, can one say that Kantianism is immoral qua philosophy, as a set of ideas apart from Kant's motivation? I certainly think the answer is that yes you can, and that you ought to do that -- if you take ideas seriously.

However, it is obvious from this thread and this discussion that some people are resistive to doing that.

[~Sophia~]

I agree, which is why I didn't start this thread as, "Is NTOS an Objectivist organization?" You wouldn't have the context unless you were involved, for the most part, because the organizer hasn't written even a position paper on some of the issues.

The organizer does not have a duty to do so.

He has taken a stance by implication of kicking me out in the context of me wanting to keep out Kelleyites and Brandenites -- he chose them over me -- but he hasn't explicitly stated that he is for David Kelley or Nathaniel Branden qua "Objectivists."

This is another attempt to "between the lines" smear this organization and its organizer. As explained you have been kicked out by being unjustly insulting - not because of your philosophical ideas.

However, one can still discuss the principles involved, which is what I have been doing.

Yes of course and the principles have been summarized in my post #117.

Since Fact and Value was explicitly written against David Kelley's position, and since Dr. Peikoff has explained why David Kelley's position with regard to not being able to morally evaluate people based on their ideas or not being able to morally evaluate ideas in the abstract is a repudiation of Objectivism.

You are contradicting yourself here - either you can morally evaluate people's ideas separate from people who originated them and express your moral judgment about their ideas to them without it reflecting on their character (which clearly you can't as per Dr. Peikoffs essay) or you don't.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. If ideas are separate - if your moral judgment of person's ideas does not reflect on them then you may as well agree with Dr. Kelley - who is saying that eventhough Kant's ideas were evil - he may not have been himself.

Because David Kelley's stance repudiates Objectivism, and because Objectivism does take a stance that ideas have to be morally evaluated, once one understands that one has to say that David Kelley's ideas are immoral in the abstract, regardless of whether or not one thinks that Kelley himself is immoral -- i.e. morally evaluating people based on their ideas is a crucial aspect of Objectivism.

His ideas are not immoral in the abstract - Dr. Kelley is a philosopher. He meets the criteria of having all the observations and all of the understanding necessary.

You have created a scenario in which the assumption when in abstract meets the concrete.

What David Kelley is advocating is that we refrain from taking intellectual methodology into account when morally evaluating someone -- i.e. we shouldn't take into account if they are rational or not.

His ideas are immoral because he advocates that we should not morally judge people based on their ideas; and by at least implication, that some philosophies -- i.e. Kantianism -- cannot be considered to be immoral because of their effects of rendering the mind not being connected to reality in any manner whatsoever, once accepted.

Nobody here is advocating Dr. Kelley's position.

Nonetheless, the idea in the abstract that one ought not to take someone's ideas into account when morally evaluating them is immoral.

Nobody here is advocating Dr. Kelley's position. Why bring it up?

The question then becomes: "How much studying of Objectivism will lead one to realize that taking someone ideas into account ought to be part of their moral evaluation of that person?" I think probably only a few years of series study, if not sooner. It's just not that difficult to grasp, especially in the context of Ayn Rand's novels.

See and this is a clear example of your inability to correctly judge the CAUSE. In order to judge someone's cause you have to ask them questions to see how much understanding they have about, in this case, the concept of morality. Time is irrelevant - what is relevant is if they made certain logical connections - and it is not difficult to find that out.

Now, the question of whether or not one can morally evaluate ideas in the abstract is a more difficult question to consider. That is, can one say that Kantianism is immoral qua philosophy, as a set of ideas apart from Kant's motivation? I certainly think the answer is that yes you can, and that you ought to do that -- if you take ideas seriously.

I have already said I think at least 3 times, in your mind you can make any evaluations you wish to make in as much in an abstract as you please but you are not justified when addressing people who are wrong to morally condemn them regardless of their mental process. You are not justified to be uncivil and insulting toward them just because they are wrong. There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical. Behaving with politeness/rudeness to another person is not arbitrary but an aspect of justice - we treat people accordingly to our objective judgment of the them. While sometimes a situation may call for it - it is certainly wrong if you behaving this way against anyone who is wrong and against the rules of an organization you voluntarily joined.

And yours "you ought to do that if you take ideas seriously" is another false dichotomy.

Edited May 20, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[softwareNerd]

Thomas, I'm personally uninterested in whether ideas "in the abstract" are immoral or just "bad" or just "wrong". So, I'll focus on the question of judging people:

Now, that is quite a lot to take in, especially if one is new to Objectivism and to philosophy in general. So I certainly would not say that someone just coming across Objectivism is immoral if they do not understand this issue. Nonetheless, the idea in the abstract that one ought not to take someone's ideas into account when morally evaluating them is immoral.

The question then becomes: "How much studying of Objectivism will lead one to realize that taking someone ideas into account ought to be part of their moral evaluation of that person?" I think probably only a few years of series study, if not sooner. It's just not that difficult to grasp, especially in the context of Ayn Rand's novels.

Are you implying that a person who has heard you make this argument and who has read F&V and is still unconvinced is evil themselves?

[blackdiamond]

I didn't know the background to this debate until the link from Sophia and the subsequent posts.

Let me be clear. I am a stickler for the principle of property rights and I think it is so important that it is the one basic foundation of civilisation; it is the most basic application of reason in politics. So, if Mr. Miovas' position is that he has a moral right to do something with the property of another person, he is wrong. It is that simple and incontrovertible.

To expand (on the simple), this forum belongs to its owner and none of us has the right to take it into a direction that he doesn't wish for it, no matter how right we are. We can make suggestions and he can decide to agree or to disagree - at which point we can choose to leave the forum or to continue in it. But we can not force him to do anything, and we can not disregard his own rules or preferences with impunity. That would be, at the very least, immoral, if not even illegal.

So, with respect to the question of the guests of a group and how you treat them, the only principle to remember, again, is that qua guests, they are the property of the host. You should never do anything with the property of someone against his consent. To do it nonetheless, in the hope that he won't know your motivations, is dishonesty. Disclosing your motivations is honest, but demanding that he must change if he is a moral man is manipulation through intellectual intimidation. A moral man can never ask others to sacrifice themselves to him, no matter how irrational they are. That might be in agreement with Nietzsche, but never with Rand - or reason.

I think that sums up my position on the concrete issue.

The mistake you are making, Sophia, and this is why you won't have any effect on Mr. Movias, is that you are taking this issue beyond the simple issue of property rights, into a wider philosophical discourse on which he is abstractly correct. The fact is that there is no moral requirement to be civil to anyone, except if you value that person, in which case if you are not civil to them, you might lose them, which (probably) means you are not acting to keep that which you value. Which means you are acting in contradiction to your values. But politeness or civility as such is not a virtue, at least not in Objectivism.

If Mr. Miovas does not value the friendship of irrational people, he would be irrational and dishonest to act as if he values them. You are asking him to sacrifice himself for what he does not value and you are also using some intellectual intimidation (I for one have not yet seen your "argument," frankly speaking, but I might have just missed it in the long thread). If he works to keep them away from him, that is still his prerogative and it is not immoral. But what is immoral is if he chooses to use another person's property, against their consent, to achieve this.

You keep saying that certain ways of communication will offend most people and so on, but this is only a valid argument if someone values those people. Objectivist morals are based on values (though restricted by property domains). There is no moral requirement to value all people, not even students of Objectivism, and not even your own child. In fact, there is no moral requirement to value anyone at all. One can be perfectly moral without finding any other person living on this planet valuable (except perhaps for their economic products), and thus perfectly moral to act in such a way that he discourages them from coming close to him. This is perfectly fine and Fact and Value does not contradict it in any way.

BUT - to re-emphasise - no one can rightly impose that view or approach on another person, or indeed use tactics that keep people (guests) away from that person if he does not disvalue them similarly - even if (one thinks) he should. It is evil to impose yourself and your values on other people's wishes (for their lives and property), no matter how right you are in principle, and no matter how much you think it would help you - or them. The only moral choice you have is to logically persuade them to your view (if they even want to listen to you), or to withdraw yourself from them. To impose yourself is not only immoral, it is evil. [i am not yet in a position to know if this is exactly what happened in Mr. Miovas' case, and it is not the main subject of this thread, but I would judge him as evil if that is what he did. I hope not.]

[KendallJ]

If Mr. Miovas does not value the friendship of irrational people, he would be irrational and dishonest to act as if he values them.

BD, thanks for your stance on the association issue. I agree with your general assessment, but the aspect of implicit valuing is contained in a so-called desire to associate. I think this is the concern I have with Mr. Movias' position. That is, one does not join an association comprised of people whom one has no value for, and then one does not attempt to push other out of said association because one doesn't value them (unless it's his own association). This is where the concept of civility is a requirement. This is a voluntary association of like-minded individuals. One assumes that people join it and stay because they value something about it, at least in some way including the people in it. To treat the people in a voluntary association as if you don't value them (either by talking down to them, or by simply disrespecting them) and then claim that your stance to stay and force others out on principle is justified is as about 2nd handed as I can think of.

It is the mentality of a crusader, one who goes somewhere to associate with people he doesn't value, in the hopes of purifying the association by purge or converting those to choose to stay and associate.

I think the concept of civility is a very good litmust test for the honesty of ones intentions in free association, especially when one claims to the contrary. If one chooses to disrespect those he associates with, but continue to claim that he values them, then there is a contradiction to be resolved. Either he does not value others, or he is clueless about what others would truly value in him that would make them want to associate with him.

It strikes me that Mr. Movias has proven to have a history of unresolved contradiction with regard to this fact.

Edited May 21, 2007 by KendallJ

[blackdiamond]

BD, thanks for your stance on the association issue. I agree with your general assessment, but the aspect of implicit valuing is contained in a so-called desire to associate. I think this is the concern I have with Mr. Movias' position. That is, one does not join an association comprised of people whom one has no value for, and then one does not attempt to push other out of said association because one doesn't value them (unless it's his own association). This is where the concept of civility is a requirement.

Again, Kendall, as long as you depart from the central issue of property ownership and property rights, you will tend to embrace some false absolutes not grounded in Objectivist fundamentals. The fact is that you CAN rightly act to push others out of said association, *as long as the property owner doesn't mind* (for whatever reason). That's the key issue. Thus, the "concept of civility" is not necessarily "a requirement", full context is important.

[i think I have "accidentally" visited at least one online Objectivist (or "Objectivist"?) group in which people are generally "uncivil" to each other or at least to those they don't like. And the board owner himself freely insults people he chooses to insult, and apparently has very little patience for those who oppose or fail to grasp his points! Would you say that "civility" is "a litmus test" (or requirement) for anyone who decides to associate with this particular group? I think not.]

[KendallJ]

BD, I think that is a fair crticism. Civility may not be the fundamental argument. I tend to hold some of hte obfuscation in the original hypothetical responsible, which is why I put out my direct answers to those questions.

I think I actually posted to that forum you mention for a while. If it is the one I'm thinking of, ironically, they tout their "Sense of Life...". Civility is not a litmus test for "association", it is an interesting litmus test of one valuing the other members of the association. I think the owner has reasons for owning the board, but I'd be surprised if it had anything to do with valuing those who frequent it. I find a board like that highly distasteful, and I don't think the empirical existence of such a board necessarily negates the principle.

[~Sophia~]

Blackdiamond,

I think this post is the biggest strawman I have ever seen. It is a gross misinterpretation of my argument. If it is because you did not get what my argument was - go back and re-read my posts and if you have questions - I will gladly answer.

The mistake you are making, Sophia, and this is why you won't have any effect on Mr. Movias, is that you are taking this issue beyond the simple issue of property rights, into a wider philosophical discourse on which he is abstractly correct.

I have shown the source of Mr. Miovas philosophical error.

The fact is that there is no moral requirement to be civil to anyone, except if you value that person, in which case if you are not civil to them, you might lose them, which (probably) means you are not acting to keep that which you value. Which means you are acting in contradiction to your values. But politeness or civility as such is not a virtue, at least not in Objectivism.

And my argument was NOT based on politeness and civility. I greatly resent such implication, after having written over 100 posts in this thread on the topic of moral judgment of people.

What I said about politeness/civility that it is not arbitrary - but based on our judgment of the person whom we addressing. Yes, it is tied to how much we value them. So let's apply this to this particular situation.

Since we are trying to promote Objectivism, it follows that any honest, rational person (or even a person who shows interest in ideas and Oism - even if we notice not fully rational) - even if not an Objectivist yet - if interested in learning about Oism - is a value - potentially a great value. The rules of civility especially toward newcommers with potential - on OO.net, other boards, other Oist organizations reflect that fact - although it is probably not the only reason.

In case of dealing with strangers - what your purpose is and how much potential you see - determines how you will choose to treat them.

Clearly if you start acting uncivil toward them - you are acting against your chosen value/goal. Now if that is not goal, but you have chosen to voluntarily join an organization who's goal is to spread Oism - than it only follows that you must obey their rules of conduct even if you don't value those people yourself. (I don't think you are disputing that).

If Mr. Miovas does not value the friendship of irrational people, he would be irrational and dishonest to act as if he values them. You are asking him to sacrifice himself for what he does not value and you are also using some intellectual intimidation

I highly resent you summarizing my argument in this way. This was not about forcing friendship with the irrational. Please STOP misinterpreting my arguments.

Nobody here was calling for sacrifices! If Mr. Miovas does not see a value in those who are not Oists yet or those who don't understand Oism very well - he is free not to associate with such people. Nothing I have said contradicts this.

An Oist organization, or any board is a place you voluntarily join.

But Mr. Miovas is NOT justified to morally condemn ANY person who holds false ideas regardless of their mental process.

(I for one have not yet seen your "argument," frankly speaking, but I might have just missed it in the long thread).

This is dishonest.

If he works to keep them away from him, that is still his prerogative and it is not immoral.

This is a strawman. I have never said that Mr. Miovas must deal with those people. He joined this organization voluntarily.

But what is immoral is if he chooses to use another person's property, against their consent, to achieve this.

That is just additional factor in this situation.

Edited May 21, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

Would you say that "civility" is "a litmus test" (or requirement) for anyone who decides to associate with this particular group? I think not.]

Another strawman. Nobody was saying that it is - it depends on the PURPOSE you trying to achieve and your purpose can not contradict the one of the owner of the group.

Edited May 21, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

Blackdiamond,

If you would like to provide a counter argument to what, in fact, I said - I welcome it - but please STOP misinterpreting my statments.

[~Sophia~]

Behaving with politeness/rudeness to another person is not arbitrary but an aspect of justice - we treat people accordingly to our objective judgment of the them. While sometimes a situation may call for it - it is certainly wrong if you behaving this way against anyone who is wrong and against the rules of an organization you voluntarily joined.

On the topic if civility.

I do think that how we treat people, which includes the issue of civility, should be a reflection of how they deserve to be treated based on our objective judgment of them. To me it is a part of the concept of justice.

It is a part of living a virtuous life - to treat people based on how they deserve to be treated. Doing so is in our self-interest - not doing so is not.

This is however NOT a topic of this debate (which was moral judgment of people) and has not been the base of my argument. I would like to keep this debate focused on the issue being debated.

Edited May 21, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[KendallJ]

Once again, Sophia's princpled stand is compelling.

Civility as an aspect of justice, vs. BD's claim that it is derivative.

Nice job.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

BUT - to re-emphasize - no one can rightly impose that view or approach on another person, or indeed use tactics that keep people (guests) away from that person if he does not disvalue them similarly - even if (one thinks) he should. It is evil to impose yourself and your values on other people's wishes (for their lives and property), no matter how right you are in principle, and no matter how much you think it would help you - or them. The only moral choice you have is to logically persuade them to your view (if they even want to listen to you), or to withdraw yourself from them. To impose yourself is not only immoral, it is evil.

Black Diamond, you don't have the full context. I wasn't imposing anything on anybody, and I wasn't violating anyone's property rights. All I was doing was writing against the Kelleyites and the Brandenites when such topics came upon the board or if those topics came up at the social meetings. There was an open invitation to have philosophic discussions, both on the board and on the locale -- it was, in fact, a selling point of attending those meetings. So, I wasn't doing anything against his will on his property (the meetings occurred on his property). I simply made my position clear, as I am doing here on this board.

If someone says, "Come here and speak your mind, you will find like-minded individuals here," then I don't expect that they will whine like two year olds if someone disagrees with them.

I mean, he could have said some things were forbidden topics, because he wanted to draw those people in, but I had been writing and speaking that way for over a year and he never said anything about it.

I am proud of how I conducted myself there, and I'm proud of how I am conducting myself here.

There aren't many people who, after being accused erroneously of being intellectually dishonest, dishonest, unjust, etc. etc., would still try to get their point across, because he knows he is right.

By the way, I am no longer trying to convince Sophia. After giving her detailed examples after detailed examples, I have to conclude that I am wasting my time with her.

And that is about a civil as I can possibly be with her.

Ideas can be morally evaluated, by simply relating the meaning of them to oneself and one's standards and one's purpose. Those ideas that are against a rational man's life on earth and in reality are immoral -- period.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[softwareNerd]

Since everyone (including me) seems to have written off their opposition, I'm closing this thread.

Edited May 22, 2007 by softwareNerd