Chill out, people. The above exchange would never have happened in person.
I cannot speak for RCop, but if this conversation had occured in person, I would have said the exact same things as I have here. And I would have defended myself with the same words, as I am about to now.
Claiming you didn’t bother to read the suggested thread which ANSWERED your questions - which you didnt?
If it were simply that claim, I would agree. That claim however was more extensive in that you accused me of a lack of ACTUAL interest because I choose not to pursue your method of acquiring the information. That is the part of the claim that is FALSE and MALIGNING.
I said IF you were ACTUALLY interested in the answers you claimed to have been seeking you WOULD have read the thread I said ANSWERED those questions. So far, nothing you have said contradicts that statement. The fact that you IMMEDIATELY responded to the referal by indicating you had NO NEED to look elsewhere because you HAD the answer (nice how you left out THAT little part in your 'more extensive explanation) is CLEAR evidence that you were NOT interested in the answers BECAUSE, as you EXPLICITLY CLAIMED, you ALREADY had them.
So much for THAT accusation of maligning.
If that were simply the claim, I would agree. However, you FALSELY characterized this comment as FLIPPANT. It was SINCERE and to the point.
ACTUALLY, I HAD said you DID mean that exactly. However, Stephen disagreed, so I gave the benefit of the doubt and added the term flippant. I am MORE than happy to remove that characterization and return to my ORIGINAL identification - ie the same thing WITHOUT the term flippant.
So much for THAT accusation of maligning.
it wasn’t “ideas” it was a specific idea or situation.
You accuse me of taking out of context and then do the same. The context was your ideas on the subject - that of self-defense. Unless you claim you have only ONE idea when it comes to the concept self defense and its application, this is just an attempt to add numbers to your claim.
NO maligning there EITHER
Three, as it turns out, that idea IS consistent with Objectivist thought so I was not off the mark, something you could have easily just told me to begin with instead of making a federal case of the issue.
*I* never claimed that your ideas were inconsistent with Objectivism. The ONLY thing I said is that the answers to your questions could be found in another thread. And I made absolutely NO federal case out of anything until numerous posts AFTER you claimed you had no need to read any other thread because you already knew the answer.
So much for maligning there. As it stands so far - still no false claims and NO maligning.
I will presume (perhaps mistakenly) that you knew this as well.
IF you had bothered to read the suggested thread, you would NEITHER have to ‘presume’ NOR be afraid of being mistaken. You would KNOW what I know on the subject (as well as what others know). But you didn’t feel this was necessary. And so you are left simply to presume and possibly be mistaken. THIS is a KEY fact - and is one of the reasons I suggested you READ the thread in the first place.
It may be a violation of some sacred covenant think one may disagree with an Objectivist idea, but perhaps there is a good reason to do so, which I stated.
THIS is the type of smear I said you were engaging in - and here you do it again. Your implication is that one (jeez I wonder who that could be) believes Objectivism should not be questioned - ie is held dogmatically. Of course this entire claim is SPECIOUS since NO ONE ever claimed you should not disagree with Objectivism. ALL you were told is that the question that was ASKED was in context of Objectivism - AND if you were interested in ANSWERS - answers presumably consistant with objectivism - you could find them in a thread right here.
Strange - STILL no maligning so far. Oh wait - yes there is. You maligned ME.
I will always try to side on what I believe to be a rational course of action rather than simply follow something because it says so. Stephen understood that differentiation.
And *I* understood it in the CONTEXT of your ENTIRE statement which was that you ALREADY KNEW the answer and thus didn’t have to bother reading anything else. THAT, when you are ASKING questions, is NOT a RATIONAL course of action.
Hmmm - no maligning here. But you have more to say. Maybe I did it elsewhere.
Claiming you rejected the objectivist claim about monopolies (there are no ‘true’ monopolies) on force - which you did?
A look at reality will demonstrate to you that my statement is fact. There are NO true monopolies on power. I was very clear that I was talking about reality, not Objectivist theory. To not recognize the limitations of the government and it’s actual limit on the monopoly of force is evasion.
There you go AGAIN - dropping CONTEXT. IF you were to quote the original statement, it is that govt has a LEGAL monopoly on the use of force. ALL other statements were in THAT context. And your claims about ‘reality’ vs objectivist ‘theory’ (want to get into a discussion of the false dichotomy of theory vs practice???) is thus void, unless you are claiming that there are OTHER legal entities which weild force.
In fact THIS claim about no ‘true’ monopolies goes to the heart of the issue - and could be viewed as a contradiction to your claim that your views ARE compatible with Objectivism. But, you arent going to ‘darken my door’ anymore so you can take that up with someone else.
Hmm - STILL NO maligning. Got just identification of your positions and ideas so far.
If THAT is his standard, then it is just as well he doesnt look this direction. That is a standard I refuse to stoop to meet.
If the issue requires in-depth research, then it does. However, in this instance it did not.
See now THIS was MY mistake - though I HAVE already admitted this one. Had I known you were simply going to accept a couple sentences instead of engaging in an actual discussion on the topic as to WHY it is true or WHY it is not, then I would simply have pointed you to a single quote as well. Silly me for thinking you were interested in an IN DEPTH answer. Hopefully OTHERS wont make that mistake with you in the future and will just give you just the barest minimum of a response.
Of course, this is not a claim of maligning - so STILL at a loss as to where these maligning statements are.
This is similar to me asking you for the time and you telling me to read a manual on making watches or time theory.
LOL!!! BOTH you and Stephen claimed that it seemed I was interested in having a discussion with you on the topic - a goal YOU were supposedly interested in. NOW you are asserting you DIDNT want a discussion, but just a very simple answer to a simple question.
JEEZ - if you are going to make up accusations against me, at LEAST be CONSISTENT about it.
I’ll let your posts stand as evidence to how it appears you were somehow offended by me or my comments. Apparently I’m not the only person that sees that.
How nice of you. And I will let YOURS stand as well - as evidence that your claims against me were UNFOUNDED, whereas yours attacks are quite real and quite undeserved.
Oh - btw - the fact that someone else agrees with you doesn’t make what you say true. Little logic fact there. That is one of the reassons *I* went through the recap.
This will be my last post on the matter as I have brought it to GC’s attention. If in his view my actions have been inappropriate, I’ll post once more to publicly apologize and resign my position as moderator.
I see no reason for you to resign over this. Given Stephen’s statements about your general behavior, I see this as an innocent error which snowballed into an attack. The ONLY thing I have found objectionable have been the personal attacks. But I understand making remarks in the heat of the moment that you might otherwise regret. As such, I don’t think the one incident prevents you from carrying out the duties of a moderator. So long as the attacks are retracted, I would consider the matter closed.
(Oh - and if you are again going to claim you already did that, no you didn’t. You apologized for anything you might have said in posts previous to the one in which you attacked and smeared me. You were NOT apologizing for those attacks and smears. And since you had not made any attacks or smears before that post, you were apologizing for nothing WHILE attacking me.)
Anyway. 'Nuff said.
