- I am not angered by you, I am bored by you.
I’d like to politely suggest that it would be a good policy here at OO that moderators should not be acting as moderators on threads on which they are participating. It’s a conflict of interest for them to have the power to delete discussion opponents’ posts. I’d think that the Objectivist concept of justice should apply, even to something as minor as this, and that only a neutral moderator should be doing such things.
- I have personally taken part in the many, many, many interactions involving mods warning you about your posts.
I don’t doubt what you say, but that doesn’t address the issue at hand, which is that posts of mine have indeed been deleted without notification or explanation, and recently. The fact that I sometimes have received notification from moderators doesn’t mean that I always do. The fact that you have had discussions with other moderators about their actions against me doesn’t address the fact that other moderators have taken actions against me without notification, and apparently without informing you or other moderators.
- You are not in fact on topic. Like all the other things you repeat over and over, your repetition does not make the falsehood true.
It’s interesting that this thread has been split off to a new thread, apparently because it is “not on topic,” yet the initial statement, by a moderator, which changed the subject is still on the original thread. So, on a thread about Rand Paul, apparently when a moderator brings up the issue of whether or not libertarianism is a philosophy, his doing so in “on topic,” but if anyone responds in disagreement to his views, their participation is “not on topic”?
Anyway, I mentioned earlier that I wanted to explain why my argument is not tu quoque. In order for my argument to be an example of tu quoque, I would have to be saying that Objectivism has contradictions and not much of an underlying philosophy, and therefore it is okay that libertarianism has contradictions and not much of an underlying philosophy. That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t accept the unsupported assertion that libertarianism doesn’t have much of an underlying philosophy, and I don’t take the position that Objectivism doesn’t have much of an underlying philosophy, or that any errors that Objectivism has excuses or exempts any errors that libertarianism or any other philosophy has.
Rather, my point was simply to apply, as an act of reductio ad absurdum, your apparent chosen standards of judgment in this thread equally to both Objectivism and libertarianism. Apparently my doing so struck a chord. Clearly you don’t like it when the standard you use to judge libertarians is applied equally to Objectivists.
I’ll finish by saying that you repeatedly asked that someone name the libertarian philosophers they had read, as you were claiming that the users of this forum criticise things they do not have firsthand knowledge of.
That’s not quite accurate. I did not ask people to name the libertarian philosophers they had read, but rather, more precisely, I asked them to identify which works by libertarian philosophers they’ve read. See, anyone can read a few snippets of libertarian philosophers online, and then report the names of those philosophers, but that’s not what I was asking for. I’m interested in hearing which works have been read, absorbed and understood in their entirety. If one has read only a few works (or a few snippets) of, say, only five or ten libertarian philosophers, one isn’t in the position to claim that libertarianism doesn’t have much of an underlying philosophy.
I politiely gave you a list and pointed out where you may have erred in interpreting SWN’s post. Polite, the whole time.
I disagree. I don’t think that your characterizing your response to me as “throwing some chum” was polite. It means that you’re tossing bait, and that you view me as something like a shark to be toyed with or caught. Quite rude, adversarial and taunting. To me it comes across as someone who is enjoying her position of acting as both prosecutor and judge, and is pre-judging her opponent as unworthy of full attention and respect.
Your response ignored my answer to your question and turned into an off topic attack, yet again, on this forum and Objectivists in general.
You are not using this forum in an appropriate manner.
That’s false. I did not attack this forum and Objectivists in general. My complaint was not about this forum, but only about certain moderators’ behavior. They are individuals, and not representative of everyone on this forum (and I still don’t even know for sure who they are, since they haven’t had the courage to identify themselves and their reasons for deleting my posts). And my criticisms about certain Objectivists’ methods of promoting their ideas were not about all Objectivists, or about Objectivists in general, but only about those who make judgments and assertions beyond their level of knowledge.
I also identified, very politely, rationally and dispassionately, the fact that prominent Objectivists have contradicted themselves. My doing so was not an “attack,” but a statement of fact. Your labeling it as an “attack” is an example of emotional defensiveness, and an example of why people shouldn’t be acting as moderators on threads on which they’re participating. Your warning me and telling me how to behave while rudely taunting me and mischaracterizing my posts as “attacks” is unjust. I think that a just person would recuse herself from her role as moderator while in discussions, and not lace her comments with warnings about limiting her discussion opponents’ posting privileges.
J