Advice for Meaghan Walker
Jimmy Wales
In _The Letters of Ayn Rand_, there is a letter from Ayn Rand to
a very young Nathaniel Branden (Nathan Blumenthal). In this letter,
she explains to him, in essence, that he should work hard to validate
his knowledge about Objectivism so that he can enter into discussions
with other people without becoming angry and hostile. Apparently,
he had a bad habit of flying off the handle and yelling at people.
In his lecture course _Objectivism: The State of the Art_, Peikoff offers
the same basic idea as motivation for seriously studying the material he
will present. Peikoff gives an example: If you were to overhear someone
at a party claiming that "2+2=5," you wouldn't get angry, you wouldn't fly
off the handle, you'd probably just chuckle to yourself and walk over to
find out more about this very strange person! You'd patiently explain
to him the nature of his error, and you wouldn't find yourself upset
or flustered at all.
In my experience, many cases of getting angry in debate and subsequently
yelling at someone in public stem from a certain nervousness about the
validity of one's own position. Such an emotional response is not pleasant
to say the least! Who wants to go around angry and yelling at people
all the time? Not me, that's for sure. I'd rather just do my homework
so that I can be sure that I'm in the right, and be prepared with a full
explanation. If I wind up in a public debate with someone who I conclude
is dishonest, well, I still try to keep my temper, because at that point,
I'm not arguing *with* them, I'm just demonstrating their folly to the
rational bystanders who might be misled.
Keep in mind that a lot of people just skim the large volume of posts.
When you behave as you do, angry and yelling and cussing at people,
_that's all that innocent bystanders will remember of you_. And they
are likely (and quite properly so) to conclude that your opponent must
have had you on the ropes, logically speaking, so that all you could do
was hurl insults. After all, if you knew what you were talking about and
could prove it, why would you just go around insulting people?
You can take my advice or not. But please do go read Rand's letter to
N.B., and think about what I've said. It's in your own selfish interest
to reach a state of confidence in your convictions that you don't have to
go around upset all the time.
--Jimbo
Ed Matthews
On 31 May 1996, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> In my experience, many cases of getting angry in debate and subsequently
> yelling at someone in public stem from a certain nervousness about the
> validity of one's own position.
Nervousness??!?!?
In _my_ experience, I start yelling out of frustration. I can see the
syllogisms as clearly as a mack truck barreling down the road. If I
point to it, trying to indicate that a guy's going to get hit - and the
guy says something like, "Well, how can you be so sure? That's just your
dogmatism, which means that you are in some sort of religious cult, etc."
Now _THAT_ makes me scream!!
(And then he might fan the flame by claiming my emotional state is due to
my irrationalism!) :-)
> Keep in mind that a lot of people just skim the large volume of posts.
YES! That could be solved by h.p.o.!
My advice: if you are getting really frustrated by your opponent's
irrationalism, give up the debate. Is convincing some loon really worth
the effort, even if he is capable (or willing) of being convinced?
Of course, be careful about identifying your opponents. Improper
condemnation is just as bad as the "toleration" of bad people.
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Paul Hsieh
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> In my experience, many cases of getting angry in debate and subsequently
>> yelling at someone in public stem from a certain nervousness about the
>> validity of one's own position.
Ed Matthews <e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>In _my_ experience, I start yelling out of frustration. I can see the
>syllogisms as clearly as a mack truck barreling down the road. If I
>point to it, trying to indicate that a guy's going to get hit - and the
>guy says something like, "Well, how can you be so sure? That's just your
>dogmatism, which means that you are in some sort of religious cult, etc."
>
>Now _THAT_ makes me scream!!
I've never found that it worthwhile to scream or lose my temper in any
sort of debate, either on Usenet or in real life. It's always puzzled me
why anyone would ever want to do either, even when arguing with someone
who is badly mistaken on an issue.
Losing control of one's temper (or otherwise acting impolite) in a debate
merely decreases one's dignity and credibility in the eyes of any rational
third-party listeners who are still making up their minds on that issue.
Overall, it is a counter-productive strategy.
>My advice: if you are getting really frustrated by your opponent's
>irrationalism, give up the debate.
That is good advice. If I ever get to that point in a debate, I generally
just calmly shake my head, shrug my shoulders, and then politely end the
debate with something like, "I don't think there's much point in
continuing this discussion."
==================== ~~~ *** ~~
|| || * * ~ ~~
|| Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
|| || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Billy Beck
I have left all of Jimbo's post intact here, because I think that it
is generally valid advice. However, I also believe that there equally
vaild exceptions to any such rules of polite behavior, and I will only
make one small concession to his advice. I am here to argue for the
exceptions.
I brief, I would state the principle:
"There is nothing to be gained by treating one's deadly enemy with
politeness."
Having said that, I will now proceed to various points of Jim's post:
jwa...@MCS.COM (Jimmy Wales) wrote:
>In _The Letters of Ayn Rand_, there is a letter from Ayn Rand to
>a very young Nathaniel Branden (Nathan Blumenthal). In this letter,
>she explains to him, in essence, that he should work hard to validate
>his knowledge about Objectivism so that he can enter into discussions
>with other people without becoming angry and hostile. Apparently,
>he had a bad habit of flying off the handle and yelling at people.
>In his lecture course _Objectivism: The State of the Art_, Peikoff offers
>the same basic idea as motivation for seriously studying the material he
>will present. Peikoff gives an example: If you were to overhear someone
>at a party claiming that "2+2=5," you wouldn't get angry, you wouldn't fly
>off the handle, you'd probably just chuckle to yourself and walk over to
>find out more about this very strange person! You'd patiently explain
>to him the nature of his error, and you wouldn't find yourself upset
>or flustered at all.
The above paragraph amounts to equating the simple and privately held
mathematical error, to the mainfest threat to Meaghan's existence
which is less *implicit* than *explicit* in much of the discussion she
has engaged with her opponants. The two are not equal. Everybody
gets to make their own mistakes, Jim, with their own lives. They
don't get to make them with, and enforce them on, anyone else's life.
>In my experience, many cases of getting angry in debate and subsequently
>yelling at someone in public stem from a certain nervousness about the
>validity of one's own position. Such an emotional response is not pleasant
>to say the least! Who wants to go around angry and yelling at people
>all the time? Not me, that's for sure. I'd rather just do my homework
>so that I can be sure that I'm in the right, and be prepared with a full
>explanation. If I wind up in a public debate with someone who I conclude
>is dishonest, well, I still try to keep my temper, because at that point,
>I'm not arguing *with* them, I'm just demonstrating their folly to the
>rational bystanders who might be misled.
>Keep in mind that a lot of people just skim the large volume of posts.
>When you behave as you do, angry and yelling and cussing at people,
>_that's all that innocent bystanders will remember of you_. And they
>are likely (and quite properly so) to conclude that your opponent must
>have had you on the ropes, logically speaking, so that all you could do
>was hurl insults. After all, if you knew what you were talking about and
>could prove it, why would you just go around insulting people?
"Just"??
That's not Meaghan. The vast preponderance of her posts here have
been rational, calm, and full of reason.
As for others and their conclusions: they are free to consider style
over content. There is nothing that anyone can do about that. In my
own view: anyone who "concludes" the validity of an argument on the
style of its presentation over and above the content, is behaving with
perfect irrationality. Such an epistemic laziness proceeds with stars
of glamour in its eyes. It prefers its truth dressed in an artificial
fashion of civility, and holds that value *above* truth. Such regard
for a non-essential would value the painted-on smile of a Robert Riech
or Ann Lewis as a valid entre' to rational discourse. Any thinking
person familiar with these two specimens is fully aware that no such
thing ("rational discourse") is possible in their presence. They are
to be dismissed immediately, summarily, and only in the most forceful
terms.
This is not a fashion parade.
There are real human lives at stake.
>You can take my advice or not. But please do go read Rand's letter to
>N.B., and think about what I've said. It's in your own selfish interest
>to reach a state of confidence in your convictions that you don't have to
>go around upset all the time.
Unfortunately, that "state of confidence in your convictions"...and
its statement...are not sufficient in these unholy days.
Yes: it certainly pays to handle honest error and confusion with
civility. There often come moments, however, when it is perfectly
clear that an opponant is not interested in civility...no matter how
nice their language.
At that point, there is nothing wrong with gritty expressions of that
righteous outrage which are the natural result of dealing with
*criminals* and those who espouse crime.
A reading:
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is
there not cause for severity? I *will* be as harsh as truth and as
uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or
speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is
on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his
wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother gradually
extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me
not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -
I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a
single inch- *and I will be heard*. The apathy of the people is
enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and to hasten the
resurrection of the dead.
It is pretended that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the
coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The
charge is not true. On this question my influence - humble as it is -
is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in
coming years - not perniciously, but beneficially - not as a curse,
but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that I was
right."
(William Lloyd Garrison - editorial in "The Liberator" - January 1,
1831, all emphasis original)
I take up this issue because there are, and always have been, those
who had problems with *my* style, and dismissed my arguements for that
reason.
I have no interest in them. They want it easy and nice, and there is
very little room for that. Look around you if you disagree. I give
you Conklin as one small example.
I say: *Fuck* George Conklin straight to consecutive service in every
hell that might exist, right now and forever more, for his perfectly
unreasonable proponance of the destruction of my life. He is a
predatory worm of the very first division, no matter his style.
He is one of *millions*, and there is nothing to be served in my
dressing nicely for him, or them. They don't deserve my best.
To Meaghan: carry on, Girlfriend.
You know exactly what you're doing, and you're doing it well.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96
Meaghan Walker
>In _The Letters of Ayn Rand_, there is a letter from Ayn Rand to
>a very young Nathaniel Branden (Nathan Blumenthal). In this letter,
>she explains to him, in essence, that he should work hard to validate
>his knowledge about Objectivism so that he can enter into discussions
>with other people without becoming angry and hostile. Apparently,
>he had a bad habit of flying off the handle and yelling at people.
>
>In his lecture course _Objectivism: The State of the Art_, Peikoff offers
>the same basic idea as motivation for seriously studying the material he
>will present. Peikoff gives an example: If you were to overhear someone
>at a party claiming that "2+2=5," you wouldn't get angry, you wouldn't fly
>off the handle, you'd probably just chuckle to yourself and walk over to
>find out more about this very strange person! You'd patiently explain
>to him the nature of his error, and you wouldn't find yourself upset
>or flustered at all.
>
>In my experience, many cases of getting angry in debate and subsequently
>yelling at someone in public stem from a certain nervousness about the
>validity of one's own position. Such an emotional response is not pleasant
>to say the least! Who wants to go around angry and yelling at people
>all the time? Not me, that's for sure. I'd rather just do my homework
>so that I can be sure that I'm in the right, and be prepared with a full
>explanation. If I wind up in a public debate with someone who I conclude
>is dishonest, well, I still try to keep my temper, because at that point,
>I'm not arguing *with* them, I'm just demonstrating their folly to the
>rational bystanders who might be misled.
>
>Keep in mind that a lot of people just skim the large volume of posts.
>When you behave as you do, angry and yelling and cussing at people,
>_that's all that innocent bystanders will remember of you_. And they
>are likely (and quite properly so) to conclude that your opponent must
>have had you on the ropes, logically speaking, so that all you could do
>was hurl insults. After all, if you knew what you were talking about and
>could prove it, why would you just go around insulting people?
>
>You can take my advice or not. But please do go read Rand's letter to
>N.B., and think about what I've said. It's in your own selfish interest
>to reach a state of confidence in your convictions that you don't have to
>go around upset all the time.
>
>--Jimbo
I will try to find that article :)
I only wanted to say this.. I think this medium doesnt adequetly express the
tone of my articles. More often than not in a debate I dont get angry when I
hear people actually voicing these ideas about taxation .. I have a special
kind of Laugh.. that accompanies my ideas. Its hard to describe.. but it is
sort of like this.. raised eyebrow snort and stiffled laughter.
Comments like "you know the holes in that arguement as well as I do.. do you
want to continue"
When they say "morality is subjective"... and they absoutley insist ... I
punch them quite hard on the leg or shoulder... and ask
"RIGHT OR WRONG"... and "WHY?"
Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the guy
can stay in the air".
When they say "reality is subjective"... I take them out to the street and say
"there is a fast moving car.. now close your eyes.. think REALLY REALLY HARD
and JUMP in front of it NOW!".. I may even in fun give them a little nudge
towards the road"... When they get angry I say
"Well you are the one that is trying to tell me that Reality conforms itself
to our wishes ,thoughts and perceptions.. DOES IT OR DOESNT IT?"
Oh yes and my favourite.. my friend that told me that owning property was
bad... and that the goal of morality was to be free from the ego and from ones
materialism...I said "I'll be by tomorrow to pick up your stuff ok.. I am
looking forward to helping you *do the right thing*.
There all sorts of PHYSICAL demonstrations that one can use to prove the
reason in one's arguement. Or in the irrationality of ones opponents.
My favourite which I havent found the opportunity to use is where the two
professsors of philsophy are lecturing on subjective reality.. and one says
"You can not prove that this chair exists"... the Oist Professor says "What
chair? the first proffessor points to the chair and says "this chair" ... The
Oist professor says "what chair, I dont see any chair".. and the other
professor picks up the chair and swings it around.. "THIS CHAIR.. THIS CHAIR..
PROVE TO ME THAT THIS CHAIR EXISTS!!!!"
LOL
Anyways.. I think you have a good point though...
EVEN in real time.. there comes a time when all you can do is say "FUCK OFF"..
You dont own me, I am not a slave and you can't bully me into accepting your
premises.
There are a few posters I have met online that I disagree with radically..But
they dont talk down to me, they treat me with respect and they respect the
common ground that we both think and feel these issues are important enough to
be discussed. The ones I can't abide by are the ones who refuse to grant that
to me or anybody who oposses their views.
There is no way that this character would get more than 2 hours of my time in
a discussion in real time.. because in real time when somebody calls me
stupid, or insists that they have a right to my property, that people on
welfare need my money more than I do, I walk away.
On line.. when the attacks keep coming and coming and coming in a continous
wave from 3-4 people I think it is entirely proper to post back in the same
manner. It isnt ignorance that offends me. It is insistence upon ignorance
that burns me up.
I mean really.. why bother spending half an hour composing a well thought out
and well reasoned response to somebody who is simply parroting and NOT
thinking. It All boils down to the same thing....
NO YOU CANT HAVE MY MONEY WITHOUT A FIGHT!
Or starting from scratch... explaining for the 20th time "these are what
"rights are" this is the foundation for morality... etc...
I will happily spend HOURS on composing posts about economics, about
epistemology, and ethics to people that actually DO think.. that read points
made against them and WELCOME the challenge to their ideas with better ideas.
I love it when somebody with an opposing arguement actually writes something
that TAKE me sometime to think about, and offer a counter arguement.
But this is not the case with the 5 posters I have encountered on line. I have
heard their arguements over and over again. I have pointed out the flaws.. I
spent about 1 month prior to this discussion on Soc.Men and Soc.Women posting
about rights... and going through it point by point. I get tired of it... I
sometimes think that I should just save those posts and repost them as
appropriate when people try the same old bullshit arguements again..
Is it just me, or does anybody else get sick of the hackneyed pattern in the
socialists positions. It is so predictable at times that it is funny. Is it
even possible to debate with automatons that dont think.. that think they are
thinking.. but are merely rephrasing worn out bromides.
I dont know.. I have been thinking that it is... lately. I went through a dry
spell with work and the usenet was a way to spend time using my brain.. and
conversing with adults (I use the term loosely). And now that business has
picked up again.. I have spent less time.. and I dont open my newsreader with
the same enthusiasm that I did 2 months ago. IN fact... aside from just a few
great articles by some outstanding thinkers.. and the great email I get on
feedback I see this as a waste of time. Whats weird though.. is that I get
about 10 emails a day from all sorts of different people.. and I have only had
11 emails over the past 5 months that were pissed off at what I had said. 3 of
those were from Jay Anderson.
So I dont know... I think as my business gets more busy.. I will be spending
less time.. and the time that I do have on here is too valuable to me to spend
trying to travel the twisty cobwebbed passage of these socialists minds to
figure out "How in the world did they come up with a new way to rationalize
THAT!!!"...
Know what I mean?
Anyways.. thanks for your input :)
All the best
Meaghan Walker
Ed Matthews
On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Meaghan Walker wrote:
> I only wanted to say this.. I think this medium doesnt adequetly express the
> tone of my articles.
Or those of other people. Occasionally intended sarcasm is mistaken for
an actual position.
> Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
> Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
> possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the guy
> can stay in the air".
Heh heh heh. I like your retort. :-)
> Oh yes and my favourite.. my friend that told me that owning property was
> bad... and that the goal of morality was to be free from the ego and from ones
> materialism...I said "I'll be by tomorrow to pick up your stuff ok.. I am
> looking forward to helping you *do the right thing*.
One of my personal favorites, too.
> There all sorts of PHYSICAL demonstrations that one can use to prove the
> reason in one's arguement. Or in the irrationality of ones opponents.
The key isn't that it is physical, but that you take their positions
literally and seriously. You then apply them to contexts in which the
absurdity should be evident even to them: the perceptual.
> My favourite which I havent found the opportunity to use is where the two
> professsors of philsophy are lecturing on subjective reality.. and one says
> "You can not prove that this chair exists"... the Oist Professor says "What
> chair? the first proffessor points to the chair and says "this chair" ... The
> Oist professor says "what chair, I dont see any chair".. and the other
> professor picks up the chair and swings it around.. "THIS CHAIR.. THIS CHAIR..
> PROVE TO ME THAT THIS CHAIR EXISTS!!!!"
I heard that one from Harry Binswanger, when he spoke at my school a
couple years ago.
> Anyways.. I think you have a good point though...
> EVEN in real time.. there comes a time when all you can do is say "FUCK OFF"..
> You dont own me, I am not a slave and you can't bully me into accepting your
> premises.
Yes. To grant respect to people who began a discussion by insulting your
values iimplies that your values can be taken lightly, i.e., that your
values are not valuable!
They say that it is selfish to refuse to argue with such people - and
they are correct in a vastly deeper sense then they think. They
compliment you for it, but not intentionally.
> There are a few posters I have met online that I disagree with radically..But
> they dont talk down to me, they treat me with respect and they respect the
> common ground that we both think and feel these issues are important enough to
> be discussed.
I likewise have no trouble at all talking with people who are actually
interested in what I have to say, not just berating me into accepting
their view via the argument from intimidation.
> NO YOU CANT HAVE MY MONEY WITHOUT A FIGHT!
Or, in more general terms, you stick up for yourself, which means you
defend your values, which means that you do, in fact, actually _have_
values. (To claim values but not defend them indicates a lack of values.)
> I love it when somebody with an opposing arguement actually writes something
> that TAKE me sometime to think about, and offer a counter arguement.
Me too. I'd like to debate something _new_ for a change, instead of 57
flavors of the same skepticism, intrinsicism, etc. To put it another
way: I'd like to see my opponents actually offer an _argument_, based on
evidence and created through reason, rather than blind, empty, feeble
insults and threats.
The fact that they don't do that, however, just further shows that reason
and reality are on our side. It also shows that they can only stick to
their positions through dishonesty, by faking reality and reason through
logical fallacies and outright lies.
> Is it just me, or does anybody else get sick of the hackneyed pattern in the
> socialists positions. It is so predictable at times that it is funny. Is it
> even possible to debate with automatons that dont think.. that think they are
> thinking.. but are merely rephrasing worn out bromides.
>
On the good side, the fact that you feel that way shows that you
understand the positions and methods involved fairly well.
Thanks for posting this, Meghan. It shows that I was mistaken about you,
and I appreciate seeing the truth.
Keep up the good work.
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
T.M. Scheeler
In article <4oqlen$q...@cliff.island.net>, rdg...@qb.island.net (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>
>.. and the time that I do have on here is too valuable to me to spend
>trying to travel the twisty cobwebbed passage of these socialists minds to
>figure out "How in the world did they come up with a new way to rationalize
>THAT!!!"...
>
>Know what I mean?
>
dawn on YOU: "How in the world did they come up with a new way to rationalize
THAT!!!"... It will have become evident by that time that they utilize a very
infantile thought process.
>Anyways.. thanks for your input :)
My pleasure!
>
>All the best
>
>Meaghan Walker
>
Best,
Tom (My kids make more sense that that) Scheeler
"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need
you." --Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED
Steve Emerson
Meaghan Walker (rdg...@qb.island.net) wrote:
: When they say "morality is subjective"... and they absoutley insist ... I
: punch them quite hard on the leg or shoulder... and ask
: "RIGHT OR WRONG"... and "WHY?"
: Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
: Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
: possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the guy
: can stay in the air".
: When they say "reality is subjective"... I take them out to the street and
: say
: "there is a fast moving car.. now close your eyes.. think REALLY REALLY HARD
: and JUMP in front of it NOW!".. I may even in fun give them a little nudge
: towards the road"... When they get angry I say
: "Well you are the one that is trying to tell me that Reality conforms itself
: to our wishes ,thoughts and perceptions.. DOES IT OR DOESNT IT?"
What does reality have to do with assertions of what is
proper and how people should behave? I don't get it.
What does rationality have to do with this? Do you
have some mathematical or logical proof that morality
is absolute, and that taxation is morally wrong?
All I see are claims and constructions about how people should
behave, about what principles are proper, and about how those
principles should be employed. All I see is
claims-making. People are justifying their moral claims
with more moral claims.
--
Turn off the TV and tune in to the Internet. Get a taste of
democracy.
seme...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Daniel Smith
In article <4or1bn$2...@nadine.teleport.com> seme...@teleport.com (Steve Emerson) writes:
>Path:
>news.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!bofh.dot!netax
>s.com!bofh.dot!nntp.teleport.com!semerson
>From: seme...@teleport.com (Steve Emerson)
>Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
>Subject: Re: Advice for Meaghan Walker
>Date: 2 Jun 1996 03:21:27 GMT
>Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
>Lines: 35
>Message-ID: <4or1bn$2...@nadine.teleport.com>
>References: <4onq63$8...@Venus.mcs.com> <4oqlen$q...@cliff.island.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: julie.teleport.com
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Meaghan Walker (rdg...@qb.island.net) wrote:
>: When they say "morality is subjective"... and they absoutley insist ... I
>: punch them quite hard on the leg or shoulder... and ask
>: "RIGHT OR WRONG"... and "WHY?"
>: Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
>: Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
>: possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the guy
>: can stay in the air".
>: When they say "reality is subjective"... I take them out to the street and
>: say
>: "there is a fast moving car.. now close your eyes.. think REALLY REALLY HARD
>: and JUMP in front of it NOW!".. I may even in fun give them a little nudge
>: towards the road"... When they get angry I say
>: "Well you are the one that is trying to tell me that Reality conforms itself
>: to our wishes ,thoughts and perceptions.. DOES IT OR DOESNT IT?"
>What does reality have to do with assertions of what is
Ron Good
In article <dls216.34...@psu.edu>, dls...@psu.edu (Daniel Smith) wrote:
>>Meaghan Walker (rdg...@qb.island.net) wrote:
>
>>: When they say "morality is subjective"... and they absoutley insist ... I
>>: punch them quite hard on the leg or shoulder... and ask
>>: "RIGHT OR WRONG"... and "WHY?"
>>: Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
>>: Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
>>: possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the
> guy
>>: can stay in the air".
>>: When they say "reality is subjective"... I take them out to the street and
>>: say
>>: "there is a fast moving car.. now close your eyes.. think REALLY REALLY HARD
>
>>: and JUMP in front of it NOW!".. I may even in fun give them a little nudge
>>: towards the road"... When they get angry I say
>>: "Well you are the one that is trying to tell me that Reality conforms itself
>
>>: to our wishes ,thoughts and perceptions.. DOES IT OR DOESNT IT?"
>
>>What does reality have to do with assertions of what is
>>proper and how people should behave? I don't get it.
>
Well, Daniel--if you are trying to assert that you see no reason for morality
to be connected to reality, that how people should behave and what is proper
is merely arbitrary, I believe you. You see no reason and consequently make no
effort to connect your morality and actions to reality.
>>What does rationality have to do with this? Do you
>>have some mathematical or logical proof that morality
>>is absolute, and that taxation is morally wrong?
>
Yes. I have proof that there are moral absolutes and that taxation is wrong.
>>All I see are claims and constructions about how people should
>>behave, about what principles are proper, and about how those
>>principles should be employed. All I see is
>>claims-making. People are justifying their moral claims
>>with more moral claims.
>
I trust you all can sort out the attributes :-)
In any case, Steve, turn off the Internet if you must--and pick up some books.
If you don't see contradictions between the reality illustrated in the above
examples and the philosophic claims on which the counter-demonstrations were
based, you need to examine the issues in far more depth than it is useful to
go into here.
Ron Good
Michael Huemer
jwa...@MCS.COM (Jimmy Wales) writes:
>will present. Peikoff gives an example: If you were to overhear someone
>at a party claiming that "2+2=5," you wouldn't get angry, you wouldn't fly
>off the handle, you'd probably just chuckle to yourself and walk over to
You'd chuckle because you'd assume he was joking. If you became
convinced he was serious, then you'd probably think he was either
mentally retarded or insane.
However, what if you overheard someone saying that blacks are not
truly human and should be made slaves again; and that it was
permissible to kill them for sport? Suppose you could be convinced he
meant this in all seriousness. And he was prepared to act on his
beliefs. THEN would you be chuckling? Or would you be rightly
outraged?
If you would be outraged, would this be because you yourself were
unsure that black people are human, or because you found yourself
unable to 'prove logically' that killing them for sport is wrong? Or
would it be rather because his position was outrageous?
This is, of course, an extreme example. Nevertheless, there are many
people who publicly advocate morally reprehensible actions, and who
give every indication of being serious and prepared to act on their
beliefs. And this is, of course, mostly in the context of political
discussions.
>In my experience, many cases of getting angry in debate and subsequently
>yelling at someone in public stem from a certain nervousness about the
>validity of one's own position. Such an emotional response is not pleasant
What do you mean, in your experience? Have you personally found
yourself getting angry because of nervousness about the validity of
your position? Or have you only *interpreted* other people to be
nervous about the validity of their position? If the latter, how did
you know that the cause of their anger was not more along the lines I
suggested above -- i.e., the reprehensible nature of their opponents?
>to say the least! Who wants to go around angry and yelling at people
>all the time? Not me, that's for sure. I'd rather just do my homework
You're right; anger isn't fun. But sometimes other people just piss
you off. The only way to avoid it is to not listen to them (killfiles
come in handy) -- or else to so deaden your sensibility that you don't
care about hearing evil proposals defended.
>so that I can be sure that I'm in the right, and be prepared with a full
>explanation. ...
Yes, but often what you regard as a full explanation will fall on deaf
ears, sadly. And when it does, that's when the frustration begins.
>When you behave as you do, angry and yelling and cussing at people,
>_that's all that innocent bystanders will remember of you_. And they
Perhaps. I don't know if I qualify as an innocent bystander, but I
can attest for my own part that I have enjoyed Meaghan Walker's
entertaining postings very much over the past weeks.
>are likely (and quite properly so) to conclude that your opponent must
>have had you on the ropes, logically speaking, so that all you could do
>was hurl insults. After all, if you knew what you were talking about and
>could prove it, why would you just go around insulting people?
That would be one possible conclusion. Another possible explanation
was that Meaghan's opponents were slimeballs who merited the flames.
I guess each person will decide for himself which conclusion best
explains her behavior.
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
\ /
Daniel Smith
Hi Ron -
I am very confused. Absolutely nothing written below was written by me.
I'm not sure what happened here, but I can assure you that I am very
cognizant of the connection between reality and morality. Thanks for trying
to clue me in anyway. :)
Regards,
Dan Smith
(Ron Good) writes:
>In article <dls216.34...@psu.edu>, dls...@psu.edu (Daniel Smith) wrote:
>>>Meaghan Walker (rdg...@qb.island.net) wrote:
>>
>>>: When they say "morality is subjective"... and they absoutley insist ... I
>>>: punch them quite hard on the leg or shoulder... and ask
>>>: "RIGHT OR WRONG"... and "WHY?"
>>>: Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
>>>: Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
>>>: possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the
>> guy
>>>: can stay in the air".
>>>: When they say "reality is subjective"... I take them out to the street and
>>>: say
>>>: "there is a fast moving car.. now close your eyes.. think REALLY REALLY HARD
>>
>>>: and JUMP in front of it NOW!".. I may even in fun give them a little nudge
>>>: towards the road"... When they get angry I say
>>>: "Well you are the one that is trying to tell me that Reality conforms itself
>>
>>>: to our wishes ,thoughts and perceptions.. DOES IT OR DOESNT IT?"
>>
Ron Good
>>>In article <dls216.34...@psu.edu>, dls...@psu.edu (Daniel Smith) wrote:
>>>(no he didn't--Steve wrote it)...My apologies Daniel for being confused
prior to this repost.)
>
>
>>>Meaghan Walker (rdg...@qb.island.net) wrote:
>>
>>>: When they say "morality is subjective"... and they absoutley insist ... I
>>>: punch them quite hard on the leg or shoulder... and ask
>>>: "RIGHT OR WRONG"... and "WHY?"
>>>: Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
>>>: Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
>>>: possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the
>> guy
>>>: can stay in the air".
>>>: When they say "reality is subjective"... I take them out to the street and
>>>: say
>>>: "there is a fast moving car.. now close your eyes.. think REALLY REALLY
> HARD
>>
>>>: and JUMP in front of it NOW!".. I may even in fun give them a little nudge
>>>: towards the road"... When they get angry I say
>>>: "Well you are the one that is trying to tell me that Reality conforms
> itself
>>
>>>: to our wishes ,thoughts and perceptions.. DOES IT OR DOESNT IT?"
>>
>>>What does reality have to do with assertions of what is
>>>proper and how people should behave? I don't get it.
>>
Well, Steve--if you are trying to assert that you see no reason for morality
to be connected to reality, that how people should behave and what is proper
is merely arbitrary, I believe you. You see no reason and consequently make no
effort to connect your morality and actions to reality.
>>>What does rationality have to do with this? Do you
>>>have some mathematical or logical proof that morality
>>>is absolute, and that taxation is morally wrong?
>>
>
>>Yes. I have proof that there are moral absolutes and that taxation is wrong.
>
>>>All I see are claims and constructions about how people should
>>>behave, about what principles are proper, and about how those
>>>principles should be employed. All I see is
>>>claims-making. People are justifying their moral claims
>>>with more moral claims.
>>
>
I trust you all can sort out the attributes :-). I had a heck of a time...
Jim Miller
rdg...@qb.island.net (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>I only wanted to say this.. I think this medium doesnt adequetly express the
>tone of my articles. More often than not in a debate I dont get angry when I
>hear people actually voicing these ideas about taxation .. I have a special
>kind of Laugh.. that accompanies my ideas. Its hard to describe.. but it is
>sort of like this.. raised eyebrow snort and stiffled laughter.
Excellent! You're making good headway in learning the characteristic
Oist condescension. Now, take up smoking, and practice peremptory flicks
and self-absorbed puffs while your opponent is spewing such nonsense.
Walk around shaking your head at the random liberal, altruist nonsense you're
always being subjected to in your daily life. And make sure to rigorously
subject your close personal relationships to this cleansing for ideological
purism.
>Comments like "you know the holes in that arguement as well as I do.. do you
>want to continue"
>
>When they say "morality is subjective"... and they absoutley insist ... I
>punch them quite hard on the leg or shoulder... and ask
>"RIGHT OR WRONG"... and "WHY?"
>
>Oh Yes.. the "levitation of the Sidhis" arguement... You know the bouncing
>Yogis of the Maharishi movement.. I told my friends "I will entertain the
>possibility that you are right about reality.. for exactly as long as the guy
>can stay in the air".
>
>When they say "reality is subjective"... I take them out to the street and say
>"there is a fast moving car.. now close your eyes.. think REALLY REALLY HARD
>and JUMP in front of it NOW!".. I may even in fun give them a little nudge
>towards the road"... When they get angry I say
>"Well you are the one that is trying to tell me that Reality conforms itself
>to our wishes ,thoughts and perceptions.. DOES IT OR DOESNT IT?"
>
>Oh yes and my favourite.. my friend that told me that owning property was
>bad... and that the goal of morality was to be free from the ego and from ones
>materialism...I said "I'll be by tomorrow to pick up your stuff ok.. I am
>looking forward to helping you *do the right thing*.
Ooo, these are all REALLY good burns, Meaghan. How fortunate for you that
your opponents have such shallow positions and understandings of "subjectivity"
that they are so easily defeated by your simple "demonstrations", though.
How unfortunate for you that demonstrating the falseness of Rand takes
considerably more time and willingness, sort of a maturing process.
(Condescension breeds condescension.)
-Jim
--
| Jim Miller | "The whole problem with the world is that|
| ji...@netcom.com |fools and fanatics are always so certain of|
| j...@umcc.umich.edu |themselves, but wiser people are so full of|
|http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jgm/ |doubts." -- Bertrand Russell |
Billy Beck
ji...@netcom.com (Jim Miller) wrote:
>(Condescension breeds condescension.)
...but it always *begins* somewhere.
Thomas Clarke
In article <4oqtdb$e...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> sche...@primenet.com (T.M.
> In article <4oqlen$q...@cliff.island.net>, rdg...@qb.island.net (Meaghan
Walker) wrote:
> >THAT!!!"...
> >Know what I mean?
> Yes, I do, and when your children have reached ten or twelve years of age, it
will
> dawn on YOU: "How in the world did they come up with a new way to
rationalize
> THAT!!!"... It will have become evident by that time that they utilize a very
> infantile thought process.
Er... Do you have ten or twelve year old children?
I submit that you may have it backwards. By the time you have
ten or twelve year old children, Rand's reasoning may no longer
make sense to you.
I confess to having children over twelve years old and to recently
having read Atlas Shrugged which I have found not to be persuasive.
Tom Clarke
You know, I wonder if the organizers of Woodstock, the rock festival,
picked Woodstock New York in a reaction to Dagny's retreat to
"backward" Woodstock in Atlas Shrugged.