Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position

Metaphysics and Epistemology
, , , , ,
141

Look, I am most certainly **not** advocating that all Muslims be killed in the name of protecting us from Islamic Totalitarianism – in fact, the essay you guys are all outraged about specifically states that this policy would not apply to Muslims who do not accept the kill-all-infidels policy. I’ve heard from various sources (Jihad Watch, Freedom Watch, Talk radio like Limbaugh and Hannity) that he was a Muslim who did advocate kill-all-infidel, but he hasn’t spoken that way while in the USA. They looked up old sermons of his and that is what he advocated. I would look it up on Jihad Watch, but their search engine is really bad.

Here is a long article from PJ Media about Rauf, including what he is for, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and supporting families who’s members have been involved in suicide bombings. Now, I suppose you could question the sources, and say they are just being paranoid, but there you have it – the evidence is there. Does this mean we can kill him outright, no, not by itself; but I think that if he every actually advocated suicide bombers ought to take to the streets of NYC, then he could at least be thrown in jail for inciting riots or some other law along those lines.

Besides, if you don’t think 911 was an act of war, then you have a problem with reality.

142

Here is a long article from PJ Media about Rauf,

If that smear job of an article is the best his critics can come up with, the hue and cry about Rauf being a threat does appear baseless.

If you start curbing the rights of people who think the muslims are an aggrieved party, and that the U.S. is the meddler that starts it all, then you’d better start with presidential candidate Ron Paul.

143

He advocates the Koran. The Koran advocates the killing of infidels. The Koran advocates killing me. By logical implication Rauf advocates killing me. It does not matter if he admits it or denies it the implication is there.

Have you read the Bible? Studied the history of Christianity and Judaism? The readily quotable doctrines that were enunciated and practiced when each ruled theocratically? Do you believe Islam is inherently (or historically) worse, on balance?

144

Have you read the Bible? Studied the history of Christianity and Judaism? The readily quotable doctrines that were enunciated and practiced when each ruled theocratically? Do you believe Islam is inherently worse, on balance?

“But everybody does it” is no justification. The only religion still officially endorsing violence in the present day is Islam.

And yes I do believe Islam is better at being a religion and is more of a threat than Christianity and Judaism. Religion in general is a problem, and Islam is the most dangerous of the religions.

145

“But everybody does it” is no justification. The only religion still officially endorsing violence in the present day is Islam.

There are murders of abortion doctors and clinic bombings to this day, sponsored by Christians and done on behalf of Christian doctrine. BTW no one can “officially” endorse anything in Islam. Islam doesn’t have a pope, for better and for worse.

And yes I do believe Islam is better at being a religion and is more of a threat than Christianity and Judaism. Religion in general is a problem, and Islam is the most dangerous of the religions.

I agree religion remains a big challenge. Whether Islam belongs at the top, meaning it poses the greatest threat, is a complicated issue. Violent attacks on the US with a large body count are more likely to be inspired by Islam than Christianity. Efforts to turn back the enlightenment and attacks on the separation of church and state are more likely to come from Christian sources.

146

All of the major religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) went through a phase whereby the non-believer was to be put to death on orders of their God. It’s an aspect of mysticism, since it cannot be transmitted or taught through reason or the evidence of the senses. Hence the only real way to spread the Word and insure it’s continuing existence in a society is via force instead of persuasion. Notice that in those countries where freedom is either permitted or defended, there are few fundamentalists for any of those religions. And that happens because religion is not a good guild for how to live one’s life, since it is not based on reason and reality.

However, as reason became more on the rise and the people became more practical minded to live their daily lives, religion began to fall by the wayside, and they no longer tried to enforce it with the gun. This was true in Judaism and Christianity (after Aquinas, who re-introduced Aristotle). But certainly, there were time periods when religion held sway (like the Dark Ages), and yes, force was the primary way of preserving The Word of God, and non-believers were outright killed. I think they would have killed Galileo except that they had become a bit too civilized for that; instead, they threatened to torture him until he re-canted his observations that contradicted The Bible. By the 1600’s, Aquinas and Aristotle had been reintroduced for about 250 years.

What those following Islam need is to come to reason, to become more rational and more this-worldly oriented. There are people wanting to do that even in Iran, which is an Islamic Theocracy, but the government keeps putting them down. And one reason they hate us – I mean really deeply – is not that we “are over there” but rather that one cannot run a Theocracy very well in modern times when they can gain access to the way things are in the west via satellite TV and radio and the internet. Its part of the same reason the Communists in the Soviet Union hated us – because we interfered with their plans of total domination simply by existing. Basically, both Islamic Theocracies and Communistic States virtually consider it to be an act of war that Western values of reason and reality can get through their defenses against letting it in.

147

I hope you will reconsider.

After reading comments on Dan Edge’s blog regarding the controversy of DH saying we could eat brainless babies, I posted the following comment onto his blog:

I don’t think DH actually advocated that we could eat babies, given that she did eventually (even in the podcast) say that it would be immoral. However, the way she handled the issue during the podcast and during the AltosCon live session was to state that the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that brainless babies don’t have rights, and therefore began to speculate that we could eat them. This turned into a session of let’s eat human baby baby-backed ribs, and I think her comment that it would be immoral to actually do it was lost in the disgust many of us felt for her bringing up the topic and the possibility that we could eat brainless babies. I don’t think she handled the podcast nor the session very well, as if she had decided that eating brainless babies was immoral, then she should not have presented it as she did and should not have encouraged her audience to celebrate eating human baby baby-backed ribs. If there is a general misunderstanding of her position, she has no one to blame but herself.

148

I don’t think DH actually advocated that we could eat babies, given that she did eventually (even in the podcast) say that it would be immoral. However, the way she handled the issue during the podcast and during the AltosCon live session was to state that the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that brainless babies don’t have rights, and therefore began to speculate that we could eat them. This turned into a session of let’s eat human baby baby-backed ribs, and I think her comment that it would be immoral to actually do it was lost in the disgust many of us felt for her bringing up the topic and the possibility that we could eat brainless babies. I don’t think she handled the podcast nor the session very well, as if she had decided that eating brainless babies was immoral, then she should not have presented it as she did and should not have encouraged her audience to celebrate eating human baby baby-backed ribs. If there is a general misunderstanding of her position, she has no one to blame but herself. [bold added]

Hmmm… that’s interesting… let’s look back in the thread a bit.

Yes, insofar as there are people out there who seem to cherry pick their ideas from Objectivism on a personal like basis – i.e. I like Ayn Rand’s views on capitalism, but insofar as she disregards God, I cannot be for Objectivism as she presented it, so I am a Christian-Objectivist – this is an act of subjectivism; of making a decision based on emotions, rather than reason .

…

Now, if one holds onto a rationalistic argument that can be shown to be unconnected to reality and therefore not true based upon an emotional attachment to one’s mis-generated ideas, then yes, this would be a form of subjectivism. [bold added]

So making emotional decisions without regard to the facts of reality (such as a concrete statement that a certain action is immoral), doing that is understandable in this case, because the emotions are ones that you personally share, and in that case it’s the speaker’s fault. But subjectivists and rationalists are people who unapologetically hold ideas based on emotions (like disgust, say?) without regard to facts.

…

149

So making emotional decisions without regard to the facts of reality (such as a concrete statement that a certain action is immoral), doing that is understandable in this case, because the emotions are ones that you personally share, and in that case it’s the speaker’s fault. But subjectivists and rationalists are people who unapologetically hold ideas based on emotions (like disgust, say?) without regard to facts.

I had a long discussion of this topic over on FaceBook when she was one of my friends, bringing up the fact that it was a rationalistic argument that we could eat brainless babies because they didn’t have rights (according to the Supreme Court). NOT ONCE did she say that she thought it would be immoral and NOT ONCE did she giver her reasons for why it would be immoral to do so. When one is involved in a controversial position and one is generally being misunderstood, that is the time to clarify one’s position, which she has not done to this date. Her statement that it would be immoral was just an aside **after** she permitted her audience to run wild with speculations that we could dine out on human baby baby-backed ribs. That her position was lost on most of the audience (since not one of the people [on my friend’s list that was involved] listening to that podcast caught the fact that she thought it was immoral), is her fault, for not being clear. Morality is a very important topic, and if one’s statements seem to take the position that such and such is moral (as her podcast did), then she needed to come out with a statement that it is immoral and here is why. So, no, I was not guided by my emotions, she didn’t make herself clear, and even her write-up reply begins with the premise that the Supreme Court says that they don’t have rights and therefore it is OK to speculate that it would be moral to eat them; and it is only after that a few paragraphs down that she says it would be immoral, again, without explaining why.

Notice how I go through a great deal of trouble to clarify myself when I am caught in a controversial position on oo.net and even in this thread. **That** is the objective policy. DH did not handle the controvesy well at all, and deserves scorn for that.

150

But subjectivists and rationalists are people who unapologetically hold ideas based on emotions (like disgust, say?) without regard to facts… …

You rightly identify the irony here. Many of the folks who use “Objectivist swear-words” like “subjectivist” and “rationalist” do not actually make any attempt to argue their own position in an objective manner. Instead, they resort to a series of “it’s obvious that” style arguments or assumptions… implicitly positing an intrinsicist epistemology. Of course, in practice, these intrinsicists are subjectivists who want something to be, just because they feel that way.

If the primary discussion in this thread is about method, then it is the Checked Premises folk who are the prototypes of lousy method.

151

Way back on the 14th of February, I posted a comment acknowledging the fact that she thought that eating brainless babies was immoral. I’m just bringing up the topic again because I followed through with Dan Edge’s suggestion to reconsider. As to the irony, at least I did correct my stance, which the subjectivist objectivist does not do on the long laundry list I gave about things they think are compatible with Objectivism.

Since the topic of this thread is the objective method and correcting one’s errors, I did do that, so consider the irony if you will, but notice I did follow through with a correction.

152

…I did correct my stance, which the subjectivist objectivist does not do on the long laundry list I gave about things they think are compatible with Objectivism.

Well, your list of examples of the “subjectivist objectivst’s” ideas, (converted to bullet-points) is:

  • Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires),
  • anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected),
  • God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts),
  • Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do),
  • modern art ( no content smears on canvas),
  • determinism (which rejects reason is volitional)

Most folk who are arguing with you in this thread would agree with your list. Of these, it’s easy to agree that sophism is wrong, but not so easy to agree on whether some particular argument is sophist. (And on modern art, Jonathan13 may disagree). Anyhow, in general it’s a fair list. So, let’s agree that “objectivists” standing up for these positions are the ones we’ll call “subjectivist objectivists”.

Surely, you’re not claiming the Diana Hsieh supports libertarianism, anarchism, determinism, sophism or god. If so, would you agree that she is not a subjectivist-objectivist if we use your list as a razor?

Since the topic of this thread is the objective method and correcting one’s errors, I did do that, so consider the irony if you will, but notice I did follow through with a correction.

Well, kudos to you for correcting yourself. And, using this standard, shouldn’t you say, kudos to Diana for correcting herself? Instead, you say she deserves “scorn”?

Scorn? For what… for taking the risk of standing up and saying stuff to and among other Objectivists, and occasionally having the spontaneity backfire by mis-speaking or by not thinking something through, and then having to walk back something she said? Surely heaping scorn on such a person is a grave injustice.

2 Likes
153

My bullet points were never intended to be a complete list of positions held that are contrary to Objectivism, but, no, I have not heard DH stating those sorts of conclusions and standing by them. However, there is one that I could add to the list, and that is the idea that the government (or the Supreme Court) determines or grants us our rights (which DH did use even in her long write up rebuttal). Here is her argument:

[The government determines our rights]

The Supreme Court has determined that brainless children do not have rights

Therefore we can conclude that there is a possibility that we could eat them (like cows or chickens)

But this would be immoral

It is the implied premise in brackets that she has not checked even in her long rebuttal to critics. Rights are not determined by the government – they are determined by the nature of man and the requirements his survival in the context of a social system. Notice, also, that her last conclusion, that it would be immoral to eat them does not follow from her premises. It’s like an aside added on. In fact, if one accepts the premises presented, then one could quite legitimately conclude that it would be OK to eat them; just as the Founders and the early Supreme Court determined that the negro does not have rights, and therefore it would be OK to enslave them. And besides all that, morality *precedes* the issue of rights. One has to understand not that man can think and therefore has rights, but rather that he *must* think in order to survive, and therefore must be free to think and to act on his thoughts in a social context. Now, I don’t think DH really thinks that the SC determines our rights, but she also didn’t explicitly reject that premise even in her long write-up. So, the scorn comes from her methodology, not her conclusions.

154

It explains in a sentence the reasoning. The reasoning does not include any mention of the Supreme Court. It would be arbitrary to suggest that Hsieh thinks the SC is the basis of her argument. You are misconstruing what is said. You may as well say [god determines our rights] in the brackets because Hsieh also didn’t explicitly reject that premise even in her long write up. You probably don’t think Hsieh believes that god determines who has rights, but hey, she didn’t say she didn’t! I have no issue with you questioning a conclusion, what I have issue with is you using an arbitrary idea, which is itself a methodology issue.

1 Like
155

It explains in a sentence the reasoning. The reasoning does not include any mention of the Supreme Court. It would be arbitrary to suggest that Hsieh thinks the SC is the basis of her argument. You are misconstruing what is said. You may as well say [god determines our rights] in the brackets because Hsieh also didn’t explicitly reject that premise even in her long write up. You probably don’t think Hsieh believes that god determines who has rights, but hey, she didn’t say she didn’t! I have no issue with you questioning a conclusion, what I have issue with is you using an arbitrary idea, which is itself a methodology issue.

Indeed, Thomas attributing views to me out of thin air… yet again. (That’s why I unfriended him on FB. I was only willing to attempt to explain myself about 15 times.) I’ve never said that the courts determine what rights are, and I certainly don’t believe that to be the case. (The courts can and ought to establish tests for the proper application and enforcement of rights, and clearly they have to do that in cases of mental incapacity, but that’s not the same thing.) No one familiar with my extensive writings on abortion rights could possibly think that I hold the view that rights are determined by government fiat.

156

Tom, hereis the podcast. From what I can tell of your arguments, you haven’t even listened to it. So, at the risk of becoming this guy, here’s all the facts to prove you are wrong about your arguments vs DH regarding this topic, no matter how much rationalization, argument from emotion, misrepresentation, and sophistry you use.

She begins to address anencephalics at 4:20.

She begins addressing anencephalic rights at 5:50.

Addressing eating anencephalics at 7:30.

Addressing morality of eating anencephalics at 8:40. Conclusion: immoral.

Possible legal prohibitions: 8:50.

Comparison to stem cell babies and medical experimentation: 8:56.

Addressing baby-back ribs: 9:30. Context: in jest and grossed-out, ie. _ dark humour. _

Argument from repugnance (this is important for you): 11:00.

Discussing unsavory topics in philosophy discussions: 11:50.

Discussing basis for repugnance of eating anencephalics: 12:00.

Comparison to animal cruelty: 12:50

Pleasure in suffering of others and animal rights vs human rights: 12:30.

Cultural value of humanity vs indifference to eating anencephalics: 15:05

Eating human flesh vs violating rights: 15:30.

Quoting from her defenseagainst CP:

I discussed the rights of the the severely mentally disabled in a May 2011 webcast. My basic view is that normal children, as well as mentally impaired children, have all the usual rights to care from their parents. However, in the rare cases of complete mental incapacity – such as in the horrifically tragic cases of anencephalic babies, where only the brain stem exists – rights cannot apply. Rights are not inherent in our DNA; they’re based on the role of reason in man’s survival. Hence, if a child is proven in court to have zero current or future capacity to reason – or, as in the case of the anencephalic, not even the potential for consciousness – then that child could be humanely enthanized by its parents.

On hearing this view, any thinking person will immediately inquire about the logical implications of saying that anencephalic babies have no rights. Consider the extreme cases: Does that mean that they could be treated like any other animal, e.g. used for medical experiments, kept as a pet, or even eaten for food? (UGH!) The thought is repulsive, undoubtedly, but that’s not a reason to refuse to think about it. An honest person’s thinking is guided by facts, not emotions, and refusing to examine the logical implications of views under consideration is just evasion. (I was asked about this very issue in a discussion over dinner with some Objectivist friends prior to the webcast. It’s a natural question.)

Never does she imply that courts grant rights, only that if a legal case of “do anencephalics have rights based on the derivation of rights from man’s capacity to reason?” was brought to court, and the court found that anencephalics in fact do not have rights because they don’t have any ability whatsoever to reason, then it would be legally permissable to euthanize an anencephalic baby, if it even lives long enough to do it. Morally it would be permissible as well.

157

OK, time for a really big apology to Diana Hsieh. I went back and re-listened to the podcast in question (for about the third time) and also re-read that portion of her rebuttal to critics, think I misunderstood her statements about the court deciding that the brainless child could not reason, and therefore could be euthanized. Somehow, I took her statement to mean that the court grants us rights. She also clearly states that she thinks it would be immoral to eat them, though the “dark humor” of human baby baby-backed ribs (brought up several times) was misunderstood by me as her endorsement of actually eating them, especially since it went into having them in grocery stores and farms. I misunderstood her arguments several times.So,for that, I do apologize to her (since she is on oo.net and evidently listening it). But I will also send this note to her via email. Diana, I do apologize. It may very well have been my revulsion of eating human babies that led me to mis-interpret what you were saying.

1 Like
158

I went back and re-listened to the podcast … … re-read that portion of her rebuttal to critics, …

Clearly ideas are important to you. Just wanted to say that I respect this.

1 Like
159

Congratulations. You have shown yourself to be a better thinker, with more integrity, than I had previously imagined.

Given that your hangup over this issue seems to have been a key contributor to your conclusion that CP was doing right and good in attacking Diana Hsieh, what do you now think about CP?

Edit: cleaned up grammar, clarified my ending question.

160

Given that your hangup over this issue seems to have been a key contributor to your conclusion that CP was doing right and good in attacking Diana Hsieh, what do you now think about CP?

I’m still thinking it through regarding CP now that I see that I was wrong about DH’s explicit views that I have talked about(regarding brainless babies). John K seems to be more against her non-serious attitude and a certain amount of disrespect and possible misunderstanding of Dr. Peikoff’s statements. There are a lot of Objectivists who jump on anything LP says, and many of them fail to take into account that his current means of communicating with students is through a 15 minute podcast that usually covers several topics, so he doesn’t go into a lot of details; many times it is basically his answer with a very brief explanation.

I started off this thread being against the whole idea of a “subjectivist objectivist” because I misunderstood their position – due to only Chip’s essay being available, which wasn’t very clear at all, and some very brief side comments John K made to me while friends on FaceBook. I understand their position better, and agree with them in principle – that standing by a rationalistic position in spite of the facts being pointed out to one makes one a subjectivist placing an “I wish” over an “It is” (as in I wish my argument was as good as LP or Ayn Rand, though it clearly isn’t because it does not follow an objective method). Whether this applies to DH or not is the issue.

I’ll have to get back with you on that.

This thread has shown me that even after a great deal of context is given (Re NYC Mosque) some still don’t get the argument, but is it rationalism while stamping one’s foot at reality? I don’t know at this point. Some issues are too serious (life or death) to leave much room for mere disagreements on applications of rational principles. For example, one might disagree with the manner in which one prevents the spread of Islamic Totalitarianism in the USA, but not over if it should be spread or not spread, since it is a direct threat to the Republic. Miss Rand held the view that the spread of communism (specifically official Communist Party affiliates) should have been prevented in the USA due to the fact that they wanted to take over the country by force, and the same argument can be made against Islamic Totalitarianism and radical imams. And clearly there are those who do not see it that way, though I’m not sure why.

So, I agree with the principle behind checkingpremises.org, but I am not sure about their specific applications to DH.