A request
Over the past couple of weeks, I have seen quite a lot of debate devolve into ad hominem and invective. Some of this was directed at others; some, at me.
A confession about me: I am really a very easy going guy, I can take a lot of crap, however ad hominem in regard to my character... that takes a long time to wash under the bridge with me. Admittedly, it's probably something that I need to work on.
Regardless, I am interested in specific things on this forum:
to educate and be educated,
to find philosophical and political allies,
and to enjoy my life.
Ad hominem, invective, and claims to and requirements of orthodoxy are not on that list.
As this is an Open Objectivism forum, I would like to keep my posts in that spirit. To that end, I welcome anyone honestly interested in Objectivism, regardless of their level of understanding of it, to comment on my posts – as long as they are interested in the same things on this forum which I am.
However, if you find it necessary to devolve a discussion or debate, please create your own post.
Thank you,
in friendship,
Rick
A confession about me: I am really a very easy going guy, I can take a lot of crap, however ad hominem in regard to my character... that takes a long time to wash under the bridge with me. Admittedly, it's probably something that I need to work on.
Regardless, I am interested in specific things on this forum:
to educate and be educated,
to find philosophical and political allies,
and to enjoy my life.
Ad hominem, invective, and claims to and requirements of orthodoxy are not on that list.
As this is an Open Objectivism forum, I would like to keep my posts in that spirit. To that end, I welcome anyone honestly interested in Objectivism, regardless of their level of understanding of it, to comment on my posts – as long as they are interested in the same things on this forum which I am.
However, if you find it necessary to devolve a discussion or debate, please create your own post.
Thank you,
in friendship,
Rick
However, I do not believe that those reason are unavoidable.
claims to orthodoxy. How is that not insulting, Rick?
It is pointless to say that there is no such thing as "Open Objectivism" because if there were not, then !bingo! I can create it by waving my hand. There is nothing to prevent it from coming into being. More importantly, I think that Objectivism - whether or not it is termed open - be general principles, not dogma. If your answer to a question that is posed is "Ayn Rand said such-and-so." it should be because what she said on that particular topic is illuminating, not because The Prophet said it.
Some of the discussions in this Gulch have been among the most interesting I have engaged in (or merely perused, if there was nothing I could contribute), but dogmatic and highly emotional bludgeoning has also been disturbingly present.
I try to avoid those threads.
Jan
I try always to be a positive member of the crew.
Thank you for all that you do, sir!!! -- john
.
This example of an outburst belies your claim to innocence as "easy going" and "friendship": http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Thank you for posting the link so all could read it.
There are many members here on this board who identify on the right (as do I) and who have a system of faith (as do some, although not myself). Stating that these members deserved to be called crazy is ad hominem. My wife is one of those people. People for whom I have a deep respect are some of those people.
This is supposed to be a board which promotes Open Objectivism. Making a person feel unwelcome because they have discovered Objectivism, are interested in it, still have a system of faith, but are not proselytizing their faith - is not very "Open". I'm sure there are many members of this board who fall under that description.
As to your link. You came onto my post and threw down ad hominem. I pointed it out and pointed you to a link of my "Two Strike Policy" http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts.... This policy has not only been in place for over a year, but it has been pointed to often as an example of how members could police their own posts. You responded by doubling down. I responded by implementing the policy. You then responded be replying to every comment on that post which you could (doubling down again). I responded by implementing the policy.
I'm sure it stung, it is meant to, because so does ad hominem - and that is the point.
I could care less if you accept that I am "easy going" or that you accept my friendship. I only care that when you comment to my posts you don't use ad hominem.
Thank you.
This was straightforwardly and logically explained to you in detail as a rational response, not "doubling down" as you repeatedly smear it. Explanation resulted only in your increasingly aggressive "get off my thread" personal attacks and abusive acts in your own admitted "doubling down": You vindictively suppressed all of my posts, whether related to rejecting your false accusations or not, 'downvoting' them, regardless of content. Your claim to an image of "easy going" and "friendship" contradicts your own actions and is false. You are militantly and vindictively abusing people who rationally stand up for Ayn Rand's principles on an Ayn Rand forum.
I did not "respond by replying to every comment on that post which I could (doubling down again)", as you falsely claim. I responded, appropriately, to your own false accusations, and routinely replied to several other comments in the thread with straightforward comments that had nothing to do with your feud. You vindictively suppressed all of them. It did not "sting". Your militantly irrational actions do not have the punitive effect you boast that you intend. They are simply vindictive emotional outbursts, as anyone observing what you did can see for himself. Your so called "two strike policy" is not forum policy, it is arrogant fire and brimstone personal abuse suppressing and personally attacking those you disagree with.
There is no such thing as "Open Objectivism". Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy as she wrote it and explained it, not whatever you want it to be . Faith is incompatibly the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and she emphatically rejected it. You have been familiar with Ayn Rand for a long time and you know that.
We all come from different backgrounds with different exposure to Ayn Rand. Anyone can publicly discuss her philosophy or ask questions about it with or without agreeing with it, but if simple statements and explanations based on it make you so emotionally unglued that you think you are justified in your militantly vindictive "get off my thread" "doubling down" and false accusations of "ad hominem", all on behalf of a contradictory "system of faith" for an undefined "Objectivism" "open" to anything then you are in the wrong place
Actually, your exact quote was:
"Conservatism is worse than alive. It's killing the tea party revolt with a dominating religious agenda. No wonder calling it "crazies" has such plausibility."
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
There is no talk of politicians here, only "conservatives", there are many people on this board who consider themselves such.
"There is no such thing as 'Open Objectivism'."
I invite you to check out the Atlas Society, their website, and their mission: http://www.atlassociety.org
"then you are in the wrong place"
Noted. In the future, I will be sure to not comment on your posts.
I wrote: "The conservatives -- the ones King is talking about -- are in fact promoting and emphasizing religion in their politics. They are discrediting the entire tea party movement they are associating it with. That is what gives King's characterization of 'crazies' plausibility. They are doing it themselves."
The more basic problem of religion in politics extends beyond the politicians King was dismissing, to the movement and its spokesmen who have been supporting religious politicians, such as Mark Levin and other radio hosts who are stridently pushing religion in politics and as an ideological base for political views.
Conservatives have not always emphasized religious agendas in direct political policy as stridently as they are today, and not all of those who think of themselves as conservatives are doing it now, but the conservative movement in general has historically been inept and destructive in defending capitalism on moral grounds. Ayn Rand discussed this decades ago. She was not a conservative and explained why emphatically. Contemporary political conservatives attracted to Atlas Shrugged who want to defend the values of Atlas Shrugged should investigate what that will take and why. That includes many people who are not conservative ideologues but who have found conservative politics the only movement opposing the left in politics and loosely call themselves "conservative" as a result. It depends on their intellectual ambition and respect for reason. Stalwart dogmatic religionists militantly clinging to faith are poor candidates.
Your linking to the Atlas Society does not change the fact that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, not the substitutions and contradictions of others who want to exploit her under the name she gave to it. There is no such thing as "Open Objectivism". Faith, in particular, is fundamentally antagonistic to her philosophy.
It doesn't matter whether you comment on my posts. Your substitution of personal attacks and vindictive acts to suppress what I write don't belong here.
1) You claim that you did not use ad hominem. I claim that you did.
There will be no resolution to this issue.
2) You claim that I have no right to police my own posts. I claim that I do.
There will be no resolution to this issue.
3) You claim that there is no such thing as Open Objectivism and as such it is not applicable on this board. I claim that there is and it is.
There will be no resolution to this issue.
Now, I have been very respectful of your claims here. You, on the other hand have, brought your beef from one post to this one.
You have down-voted all of my responses to you on this post, I have not done so.
You have become belligerent and are hijacking this post. As such... Strike 1.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Please create your own post.
Thank you.
1) The resolution of your false accusation of "ad hominem" is the definition that can be found in any credible logic text. This has been explained several times and you continue to ignore it as you repeat the false accusations. You either still don't know what "ad hominem" means or you are misusing it as a smear or both, as an excuse to suppress and evade responses you don't like. You blew up because you don't want religious conservatism criticized. There were no "ad hominem" arguments.
2) You do not have a right to "police" other people's posts by arbitrarily suppressing all of someone's posts on the page, regardless of content, in an emotional vendetta deliberately intended to be personally punitive, which you not only admitted but militantly boast and threaten. This forum is supposed to be for rational discussion furthering Ayn Rand's philosophy, not a police state of personal suppression and abusive outbursts.
3) "Objectivism" is the name Ayn Rand gave to her philosophy. It obviously does not and can not include religious faith. She said what her philosophy is. It rules out subjective demands to decree it to be something else. That was resolved long ago.
Your trying to dismiss all this as being beyond resolution is the same pattern of the claims to an "Open Objectivism" remaining in perpetual indecision. It is not, and belligerent threats of suppression to impose the resolution you want in lieu of reason -- like force inevitably follows faith -- are not rational. You are not "respectful" and anyone can see that. You continue to be belligerently authoritarian and threatening while your statements are unresponsive and repetitiously false personal attacks.
This is not "off topic" and no one has "hijaciked" your post. It is a direct response to your own statements and obviously is directly the topic you initially raised here in your complaint thread. Responses contradicting and rejecting your accusations and which you don't like are not "off topic". The previous responses you did not acknowledge have been straightforward explanations, not "belligerence". Your personal accusations are false. Your own renewed tyrannical "strike 1" threat is just as obnoxious as your previous abusive "get off my thread" behavior substituting for rational discussion, while you claim, of all things, to be an "easy going guy". It does not belong on this forum.
You either support and honor the Constitution or you don't. Cherry picking and adding fuel on the fire are mmmm well I guess there's my gallon of kerosene for the day.
Could you please clarify?