He sanctioned an article ("This article presents an argument consistent with my views") that counseled appeasement. That's not remotely even "kinda meta" IMHO -- it was part of my substantive criticism of what he said.
> Surprise surprise he responded to that part!)
"Responded" barely <<
> The important point he didn't address was: 1. suggesting America withdraw aid to Israel will be misleading to most people (without extra clarification), and 2. withdrawing aid to Israel harms the war effort (mostly via bad PR).
BTW I don't think the HUGE, SERIOUS MORAL ISSUE of the Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute sanctioning a pro-appeasement article (without, initially, any clarification or qualification), is an unimportant point AT ALL.
Consider that the sanction was the ONE THING he felt the need to EDIT about his statement (adding a qualification denying the article complete sanction).
>> 2. He specifically said "This article presents an argument consistent with my views." Arguments means reasoning. He didn't say "this article has a conclusion consistent with my views."
>>
>> I'll note that he's edited his initial thing to add the bit in parentheses:
>>
>>> This article (while I disagree with some of what is written) presents an argument consistent with my views:
>>
>> This is not good enough at all.
>
> It's common that people link to articles they don't fully agree with.
It's common and it's bad to link something and say basically "I agree with this" and then not take responsibility for it. It blocks paths forward (see Personal Individual Responsibility bullet point under Good Answers):
http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward
> It's often, but not always, good to include where you disagree with an article, but I don't think it appeases badness if you don't, except in certain circumstances where it does seem like you're condoning the thing.
This was such a circumstance (where there was condoning).
And I think that linking stuff in a condoning way, but with some plausible deniability if people refute specific points, is a common evasion tactic.
> HOWEVER:
>
> Here, Yaron said, "***It is not the reasoning***, but the conclusion [...] that I agree with." and then said, "This article [...] ***presents an argument*** consistent with my views", which is a contradiction.
>
> Argument and reasoning are synonymous, conclusion and reasoning are not.
>
> So it seems like Yaron is evading?
Yes.
> But I think this is from not thinking about it too much and wanting to defend himself from "you're not a good Objectivist" meta,
"You're not a good objectivist" (and then getting mad) is one way to take it. Another way is "You're the ARI President so I don't have to explain the immorality of appeasement to you at length." Another way is "You're not a good objectivist" (but then engaging with the substance because you're an advocate of reason and so should have kick-ass args for all your positions).
> which isn't super important (it would be better if he took it more seriously and realised he was contradicting himself, but that's a flaw in him rather than his argument).
>
> I'm curious what he thinks about the content of your post, the first 2 points.
I'm guessing maybe he (or his intern) thinks he's too high status for lengthy FB debates with random Oists.
Incidentally, check out the fool who replied later in the thread and thought that we give $300 billion/year in aid to Israel (we give 3.1 billion in latest budget):
> Corinne Holeva Yaron Brook is right about this. No one is more pro Israel than I am. I think that Israel should obliterate Hamas and any terrorist organization within her borders including Fatah. I strongly believe Israel has a legal right to her original League of Nations mandate borders and should be sovereign over Gaza, Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem. I don't think she should have given up the Sinai. One doesn't come further right than I am. However, Israel has a robust, thriving economy and if she can afford her own military defense and her existence does not depend on the US handing her a check for 300 billion dollars a year, then she would be much further off without it. Israel needs to be in a position of being able to ignore the Obamas, Kerrys and any other anti semitic politician that may come along in the future. Israel could be much more consistent in defending her right to exist if she were completely independent of foreign aid.
> Corinne Holeva I think all foreign aid is one of the roots of all evil in the world today. We need a modern day Ragnar.
She thinks, correctly, that her view (based in part on very incorrect facts) is compatible with Yaron's.
-JM