Bookmark Speicher
Billy Beck
For various reasons, I'm not going to DejaNews or any other
online archive to find this. However, it is alleged in a private
e-mail that Stephen Speicher wrote the following, which doesn't appear
at my news server:
<cite>
Subject: Re: Roofs and Ceilings
From: Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu>
Date: 2000/05/04
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
On 4 May 2000, David Friedman wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.10.100050...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 4 May 2000, David Friedman wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > > > A truly amazing judgment from the man about whom Objectivists
> > > > have been saying, for years, that he does not understand
> > > > Objectivism.
> > >
> > > So you are willing to go on record as believing that Fred's statements
> > > about it being all right to kill innocent people because they are "the
> > > enemy's civilians," and how all the Germans were guilty, and all the
> > > rest of it, are consistent with Objectivism?
> > >
> >
> > You left out the part where I said about you:
> >
> > "Talk about being dense!"
>
> I know you are willing to on record on that.
>
> But, again, are you willing to go on record as believing all that stuff
> listed above? If the answer is "yes," then I don't think you are an
> o/Objectivist either, since that stuff embodies collectivist premises.
> If the answer is "no," then your response to my posting isn't justified.
>
I'll tell you what, David. I'll make it easier for you. I don't
want to tax your limited capacity to think in principles, so I'll
make this real concrete for you. You need not even strain trying
to abstract from the past -- I'll give you one for the here and
now.
Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
nuclear bomb.
Now, what they do is up to them. But, if they do not do as we
ask, guess what? At noon on Saturday we drop the bomb, on whoever
or whatever is there.
Now David, I can hear you already saying, but what about this,
and what if they do this, and what about that, and so on and so
on and so on. Forget about that stuff, David. I know you are
uncomfortable with a rigid, structured, sense of certainty, but
don't bother asking all those what ifs. The only thing that
matters is if they don't do as we ask, we bomb them on Saturday
noon.
Now put that in your concrete-bound pragmatic pipe and smoke it!
</cite>
I suppose my private correspondent *could* be wrong, and that
Speicher didn't write this, but it's fairly simple and straightforward
matter of attribution, and I see no reason to not accept it as given.
If I'm wrong, and there's a goof somewhere, I'll be among the fastest
to back up over this.
Failing that, I'm here to point out that this is the most
horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
record. Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Ernest Brown
On 4 May 2000, Billy Beck wrote:
(Speicher's advocacy, in principle, of the propriety of slaying 13-year
old Alyssa Rosenbaum due to her residency in Soviet Russia snipped in
order to avoid the further spread of spiritual pornography)
> </cite>
>
> I suppose my private correspondent *could* be wrong, and that
> Speicher didn't write this, but it's fairly simple and straightforward
> matter of attribution, and I see no reason to not accept it as given.
> If I'm wrong, and there's a goof somewhere, I'll be among the fastest
> to back up over this.
>
> Failing that, I'm here to point out that this is the most
> horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
> themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
> record. Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
> involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>
Billy,
He wrote it, of course. What's frightening is the fundament-kissing
collectivist-adulation that he's getting from the other death worshippers
on the thread.
The really horrible thing is that Soviet Russia was the original
example...(see below)
Ernie
Ayn Rand
Resident of Soviet Russia
1917-1918, 1921-1926
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>
>On 4 May 2000, Billy Beck wrote:
>
>(Speicher's advocacy, in principle, of the propriety of slaying 13-year
>old Alyssa Rosenbaum due to her residency in Soviet Russia snipped in
>order to avoid the further spread of spiritual pornography)
Restored, because it doesn't help to look away from this:
<cite>
> > > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
</cite>
>
>He wrote it, of course. What's frightening is the fundament-kissing
>collectivist-adulation that he's getting from the other death worshippers
>on the thread.
>
>The really horrible thing is that Soviet Russia was the original
>example...(see below)
I can't think of anything more to say at the moment.
Not in a moderated newsgroup anyway.
-
John Kennedy
The Slave Shall Slave Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Updated 4/22/00
Carmichael
>
> For various reasons, I'm not going to DejaNews or any other
>online archive to find this. However, it is alleged in a private
>e-mail that Stephen Speicher wrote the following, which doesn't appear
>at my news server:
>
><cite>
>
>Subject: Re: Roofs and Ceilings
>From: Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu>
>Date: 2000/05/04
>Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>On 4 May 2000, David Friedman wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <Pine.LNX.4.10.100050...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
>Speicher didn't write this, but it's fairly simple and straightforward
>matter of attribution, and I see no reason to not accept it as given.
>If I'm wrong, and there's a goof somewhere, I'll be among the fastest
>to back up over this.
>
> Failing that, I'm here to point out that this is the most
>horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
>themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
>record. Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
>involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>
>Billy
The patient in question wrote it and it was published by my server today
5/4/2000 at 12:30 AM in the Roofs and Ceilings thread. Up until now I
thought that this gentleman was just arrogant, megalomanic and
extraordinarily mean spirited. Little did I know that the unusual level of
meanness was indicative of the abscence of a conscience, which along with
megalomania is strongly suggestive of a psychopathic personality. I had
wondered if the problem could not be a normal variant. It appears to be
worse than that.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ernest Brown
On 4 May 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
E.B.
> >(Speicher's advocacy, in principle, of the propriety of slaying 13-year
> >old Alyssa Rosenbaum due to her residency in Soviet Russia snipped in
> >order to avoid the further spread of spiritual pornography)
>
> Restored, because it doesn't help to look away from this:
>
(snip)
I snipped it because I was replying online (the 80% rule on HPO would
bounce it) and out of courtesy to Billy, since he hates long quotes and
short comments in posts.
> >He wrote it, of course. What's frightening is the fundament-kissing
> >collectivist-adulation that he's getting from the other death worshippers
> >on the thread.
> >
> >The really horrible thing is that Soviet Russia was the original
> >example...(see below)
>
> I can't think of anything more to say at the moment.
>
> Not in a moderated newsgroup anyway.
You know, we test principles by applying them in concrete instances. For
example, we know that Kantian moral philosophy is (IMU) fatally flawed
because it has no hierarchy of values. This is demonstrated in the famous
concrete example in Kant's own writing where he argues that the duty to
tell the truth takes precedence over preserving human life.
However, I don't think that I have ever found an instance in the history
of philosophy where the members of a school argued for a principle that
would have justified killing their founder. That's quite the capper, and I
don't think that the Prussian Pool Hustler could (or would care to) top
it.
Houman Shadab
wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
> my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
> I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
> forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
> and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
> comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
> nuclear bomb.
>
> Now, what they do is up to them. But, if they do not do as we
> ask, guess what? At noon on Saturday we drop the bomb, on whoever
> or whatever is there.
>
> Now David, I can hear you already saying, but what about this,
> and what if they do this, and what about that, and so on and so
> on and so on. Forget about that stuff, David. I know you are
> uncomfortable with a rigid, structured, sense of certainty, but
> don't bother asking all those what ifs. The only thing that
> matters is if they don't do as we ask, we bomb them on Saturday
> noon.
>
> Now put that in your concrete-bound pragmatic pipe and smoke it!
Billy then respoded.
> Failing that, I'm here to point out that this is the most
> horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
> themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
> record. Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
> involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>
> Billy
>
> VRWC Fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
>
While I no longer respond to anything that S. Specher writes, and I
try not to waste my time reading his posts, I feel almost obliged to
respond because he adovated the murder of half my family, under the
pretense that Objectivism would sanction such ideas.
As a preliminary note, Specher's example isn't even original, he
surely got it from Peikoff saying the same type of thing in that
McCuiston panel "Liberal, Conservative, and Objectivist" available
somewhere on the internet.
Now what blinds Speicher to the fact that such a scenario would
mean the death of millions of innocents is the application of an
utterly naive and false syllogism, which Rand seems herself guilty of,
in foreign affiars. Namely,
1. The US is based on individual rights and is the most rights
respecting nation in the world.
2. Iran and other rogue nations are based on tyranny, use
tynranny against their own people, and threaten the lives of
innocent peaceful people around the world; such nations therefore
have the status of individual criminals or murderers.
3. Therefore, the U.S. and other rights respecting nations have the
right to agress such nations for the same reasons that any
individual has the right to defend oneself or even use a
preemptive strike against criminals.
4. Moreover, any failure for rogue nations to stop their violent
acts in order to save their people from sanctions or bombing is
their fault for being criminal nations, not the fault of
nations doing the sanctioning or bombing.
This syllogism is obviously filled with collectivist premises,
and equviocates the people of a nation with the actions of their
leaders. For example, I personally know that the people of Iran hate
the government but they are not willing to go thru another revolution
in order to establish a free society, especially given that they don't
really know what a free society is.
Furthermore, the argument ignores that fact that the US, despite
its founding, is no longer a free society beyond a level which is any
longer gives it the right to bomb the capitals of other nations with an
air of moral superiorty. Granted that there is a night and day
difference between the types of rights violations that Iran and the US
are guilty for, the US lost its right a long time ago the right to
cliam to set the standard for what a free society should be like.
What allows Speicher to get away with calls for the murders of
innocents is obviously his unchecked application of Rand's ideas.
Furthremore, if you look at Speciher's posts, the number of times he
insults people, calls them "concrete-bound," pragmatists, and tells
people to put things in their pipe and smoke it, you can tell that the
man obviously is suffering some psychological abnormalities. For some
reason he seems to get pleasure in attacking other using Objectivist
ideas. Now given that I've actually seen the man recently at a Harry
Binswanger talk, I would probably venture that his ideological bullying
is an overcompensation for his physical weakness and inward hatred of
life and happiness, and evidenced in his classically nerd-like demeanor
and behavior.
I hate to insult people and make guesses myself about what motivates
people to write certain things, but when someone would like to my
family blown up in the name of reason and capitalism, I must.
________________________________
Houman Shadab
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~shadab/
________________________________
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tym Parsons
> >Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
> >my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
> >I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
> >forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
> >and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
> >comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
> >nuclear bomb.
<snip>
> I'm here to point out that this is the most
> horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
> themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
> record.
Oh Billy, stop being melodramatic and don't get so upset with Stephen.
Peikoff himself proposed this sort of scenario, on his radio show a
coupla years back. And guess what? Rand would have agreed 100%!
Hopefully all of you lib-types will be sufficiently horrified to leave
Rand alone altogether, instead of trying to misappropriate and twist her
message, eh? You have to admit it's a really weird love/hate
relationship you guys have with Rand.
> Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
> involved in it,
Begging the question.
> what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
Wrong again.
Tym Parsons
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>> what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>
>Wrong again.
No, he said *bright* junior high-schooler, son.
"Cudgel thy brains no more about it, for your dull
ass will not mend his pace with beating; and, when
you are asked this question next, say 'a
grave-maker: 'the houses that he makes last till
doomsday. "
- 1st gravedigger
Ernest Brown
On 5 May 2000, Tym Parsons wrote:
> Date: 5 May 2000 00:55:37 GMT
> From: Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Subject: Re: Bookmark Speicher
>
> wj...@mindspring.com, in response to Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > >Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
> > >my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
> > >I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
> > >forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
> > >and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
> > >comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
> > >nuclear bomb.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm here to point out that this is the most
> > horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
> > themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
> > record.
>
> Oh Billy, stop being melodramatic and don't get so upset with Stephen.
> Peikoff himself proposed this sort of scenario, on his radio show a
> coupla years back. And guess what? Rand would have agreed 100%!
Rand would agree with a principle that would have justified killing -her?-
Perhaps, but I prefer to think that she wasn't that willfully nihilistic.
> Hopefully all of you lib-types will be sufficiently horrified to leave
> Rand alone altogether, instead of trying to misappropriate and twist her
> message, eh? You have to admit it's a really weird love/hate
> relationship you guys have with Rand.
> (snip)
As someone is wont to say, "Pot, kettle, black."
David Friedman's use of Ayn Rand as an example is not an academic one to
anyone who knows her life history. It's too bad that Tym Parsons seems to
be ignorant of it.
Stephen Speicher
> Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
> involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which clearly explains Billy Beck's difficulty in doing so.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Billy Beck
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On 4 May 2000, Billy Beck wrote:
>
>> Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
>> involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Which clearly explains Billy Beck's difficulty in doing so.
Well, then, why don't you make it clear for me?
I'd like to know by what principle it is that you would condemn
individual human beings to that sort of death, who have no
responsibility for the crime you would punish.
cbm80
> wj...@mindspring.com, in response to Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > >Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
> > >my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
> > >I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
> > >forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
> > >and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
> > >comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
> > >nuclear bomb.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm here to point out that this is the most
> > horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
> > themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
> > record.
>
> Oh Billy, stop being melodramatic and don't get so upset with Stephen.
> Peikoff himself proposed this sort of scenario, on his radio show a
> coupla years back. And guess what? Rand would have agreed 100%!
Malicious libel. Rand was not a collectivist mass murderer, even
on a bad day.
Your position is pure collectivism and (not coincidentally)
pure evil.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Ernest Brown
On 5 May 2000, Billy Beck wrote:
> Date: 5 May 2000 02:26:55 GMT
> From: Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Subject: Re: Bookmark Speicher
>
>
You really -don't- get it, do you Billy?(*) "Individual" human beings only
exist for Speicher if they embrace what Jim Klein calls "ARIsm." If they
don't, they are simply a "obstacle" to be removed, if they refuse to be
convinced by ad hominem and ad baculum arguments.
You never thought that you'd see Whittaker Chambers' foul libel actually
justified by putative Objectivists, did you?
Ernie
* Yea, I -know- you "get" it, but, having inclinations towards
rationality, you don't -want- it.
Stephen Speicher
> For example, I personally know that the people of Iran hate
> the government but they are not willing to go thru another revolution
> in order to establish a free society, especially given that they don't
> really know what a free society is.
:) :) :)
> Now given that I've actually seen the man recently at a Harry
> Binswanger talk, I would probably venture that his ideological bullying
> is an overcompensation for his physical weakness and inward hatred of
> life and happiness, and evidenced in his classically nerd-like demeanor
> and behavior.
Ah, you clearly have me mixed up with one of your females. You
can tell the difference by noticing that they have more facial
hair than me.
> I hate to insult people and make guesses myself about what motivates
> people to write certain things...
>
:) :) :)
Stephen Speicher
>
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 4 May 2000, Billy Beck wrote:
> >
> >> Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
> >> involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
> >> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Which clearly explains Billy Beck's difficulty in doing so.
>
> Well, then, why don't you make it clear for me?
>
Many years ago I concluded you were too irrational to bother
reading, much less to argue with. So, don't push your luck. Just
feel privileged that I condescended to actually respond to you
this once. It was a cute enough funny that I chose to do so.
Maybe in a couple more years I'll grace you with a comment again.
Be patient.
Owl
news:8et4pl$9ft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
> > my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
> > I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
> > forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
> > and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
> > comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
> > nuclear bomb.
> > Now, what they do is up to them. But, if they do not do as we
> > ask, guess what? At noon on Saturday we drop the bomb, on whoever
> > or whatever is there.
> > Now David, I can hear you already saying, but what about this,
> > and what if they do this, and what about that, and so on and so
> > on and so on. Forget about that stuff, David. I know you are
It's nice to see Friedman's 'pragmatism' countered by someone with no
regard at all for consequences, isn't it?
I wonder if Speicher is really as psychotic as he's trying to convince us
he is, or if he just enjoys talking big while imagining himself in charge
of the military. I wonder if he would actually undertake terrorist
activities, in accordance with his 'principles' -- like blowing up
government buildings containing innocent people, in order to combat evil
government programs. Let's hope his hypocrisy prevents him from doing so.
...
> This syllogism is obviously filled with collectivist premises,
> and equviocates the people of a nation with the actions of their
> leaders. For example, I personally know that the people of Iran hate
You're right, of course. The question is, why would an objectivist
suddenly turn collectivist in this particular context -- when normally
they aren't? This will be answered below.
...
> Furthremore, if you look at Speciher's posts, the number of times he
> insults people, calls them "concrete-bound," pragmatists, and tells
> people to put things in their pipe and smoke it, you can tell that the
> man obviously is suffering some psychological abnormalities. For some
> reason he seems to get pleasure in attacking other using Objectivist
> ideas.
Exactly. This is another piece of evidence (in case you needed any more)
for what I wrote in the past "Kelley v. Peikoff" thread.
What does Objectivism mean for Speicher and his ilk? Answer: *A
philosophical justification for malevolence.* He hates humanity, and he
is looking for a rationalization for that hatred. That's why Objectivism
is so comfortable for him that he can never contemplate questioning it.
Look at this instance. He seizes on the collectivist argument you
described, even though it is fundamentally contrary to his putative
philosophy, because it makes him feel good to advocate massive violence
and death, and this argument gives him an excuse for doing so. It
probably makes him feel powerful, to write such violent words.
This sort of 'Objectivist' is probably doing enormous harm to the cause of
Objectivism. Benevolent people hear this kind of thing and conclude that
Objectivism is a philosophy of hatred.
I need say no more; Speicher will prove my diagnosis right with his own
words, as he has done repeatedly already.
Billy Beck
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On 5 May 2000, Billy Beck wrote:
>> >> Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
>> >> involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>> >> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >Which clearly explains Billy Beck's difficulty in doing so.
>>
>> Well, then, why don't you make it clear for me?
>Many years ago I concluded you were too irrational to bother
>reading, much less to argue with.
Jeez, that's one hell of a shattering indictment coming from a
man who just called for the unilateral incineration of untold numbers
of innocent people with nuclear weapons. I mean, I'm just crushed,
and I hardly know how to cock the pistol to blow my brains out. Maybe
I'll just fly off to Teheran and mope around until you guise "win"
enough to get your fingers on the button and do the right thing, and
then I'll be free of the empty misery of it all.
Who the hell do you wish you could be, Speicher?
<shrug>
It doesn't matter. I've got you in the record advocating mass
murder, and I guess I can make do with that when the word
"Objectivist" comes up.
Steve Reed
>[...] I wonder if Speicher is really as psychotic as he's trying to convince
>us he is, or if he just enjoys talking big while imagining himself in charge
>of the military.
Isn't the latter a concrete occurrence of the former? (At least, for anyone
beyond the mental age of eight years, who isn't playing "war" in his backyard
with toy guns?)
>[...] This sort of 'Objectivist' is probably doing enormous harm to the cause
>of Objectivism. Benevolent people hear this kind of thing and conclude that
>Objectivism is a philosophy of hatred.
What, you mean there are philosophies where the ultra-orthodox don't take up
calling those they wish to insult "human slime"? I'd like to see one.
<rueful smile>
The broader mistake, of course, is thinking that such Speicherian hysteria
(either variety, Spicy Vicious Slurring or Mild Passive Illogic) has anything
to do with genuine Objectivist thought.
If this had been thrown in my face 20-odd years ago, when I was first
exploring Rand's work, I'd have gone running back to the Christians. Most of
-them,- at least, show some courtesy to others.
>I need say no more; Speicher will prove my diagnosis right with his own
>words, as he has done repeatedly already.
Well, I won't have to see it. Ah, the pleasures from using the killfile!
--
* Stev...@earthling.net *
"All I can say to you and to all like-minded independent thinkers
is that the best education is self-education. Timorous or trendy
teachers can't stop you from plunging into the treasure house of
the world's great books and art objects. Investigate, assimilate,
and then propagate your own ideas into the general culture. An
intellectually awakened life is possible in any job. Don't be
limited by your environment: It's just pasteboard walls, easily
pierced by the spiritual eye." -- Camille Paglia
Carmichael
Owl wrote in message <8etjei$qbq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
>This sort of 'Objectivist' is probably doing enormous harm to the cause of
>Objectivism. Benevolent people hear this kind of thing and conclude that
>Objectivism is a philosophy of hatred.
With that interesting post our patient declares himself the twin soul mate
of Castro, Hitler and Stalin. Objectivists never cease to surprise me. Ever
since Gary Cooper raped that woman and bombed that building I knew that
there is more to Objectivism than sees the light of day. What will come out
of the closet next?
Billy Beck
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com, in response to Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
>> >Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
>> >my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
>> >I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
>> >forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
>> >and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
>> >comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
>> >nuclear bomb.
>
><snip>
>
>> I'm here to point out that this is the most
>> horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
>> themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
>> record.
>
>Oh Billy, stop being melodramatic and don't get so upset with Stephen.
>Peikoff himself proposed this sort of scenario, on his radio show a
>coupla years back.
...as if I would know that. I've certainly never listened to the
show.
In any case, it *is* a fairly dramatic proposition to nuke
Teheran in order to suppress terrorism. Beyond that, who said
anything about Peikoff? If I'd wanted to know what he thought about
it, I would have asked. I asked Speicher for a good reason: he's the
one who made the statement here, and I figure that makes him
responsible for it.
> And guess what? Rand would have agreed 100%!
Sez you.
If that's *true*, then there could be no question but that it
would be an unconscionable hypocrisy.
But, hey: I could stand to see you try to develop the contention.
>Hopefully all of you lib-types will be sufficiently horrified to leave
>Rand alone altogether, instead of trying to misappropriate and twist her
>message, eh?
So... are you're telling me that you Shi'ite-types are so
irritated at my attention to Rand that you think you need to threaten
a nuclear attack on distant innocents in order to make it stop, or
what?
>You have to admit it's a really weird love/hate relationship you guys
>have with Rand.
You're confused, Parsons, and bordering on the delusional. Take
a look around. Rand's dead. (At least, she's never posted to
Usenet.)
That's a "premise check".
>> Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
>> involved in it,
>
>Begging the question.
...which you didn't ask.
>> what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>
>Wrong again.
Well, since Speicher's taken a powder behind this, why don't you
have a stab at explaining how every one of the inhabitants of Teheran
could be responsible for terrorism with their very lives.
Go ahead. Use both sides of the blank-out if you need to.
cbm80
> What does Objectivism mean for Speicher and his ilk? Answer: *A
> philosophical justification for malevolence.* He hates humanity, and he
> is looking for a rationalization for that hatred. That's why Objectivism
> is so comfortable for him that he can never contemplate questioning it.
That may be part of it. It's interesting, though, that the idea
seems to have originated with Peikoff, and the only justification
put forward so far is "Peikoff said so". It's rather pathetic.
What a constrast between Rand's idea of the ideal man and Peikoff's
flock of weak-minded syncophants.
vanosaur
<hsh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> As a preliminary note, Specher's example isn't even original, he
> surely got it from Peikoff saying the same type of thing in that
> McCuiston panel "Liberal, Conservative, and Objectivist" available
> somewhere on the internet.
And O'ists wonder why people think they are fascists. Maybe it's because
many of them actually _are_ fascists in disguise.
> Now what blinds Speicher to the fact that such a scenario would
> mean the death of millions of innocents is the application of an
> utterly naive and false syllogism, which Rand seems herself guilty of,
> in foreign affiars. Namely,
>
> 1. The US is based on individual rights and is the most rights
> respecting nation in the world.
> 2. Iran and other rogue nations are based on tyranny, use
> tynranny against their own people, and threaten the lives of
> innocent peaceful people around the world; such nations therefore
> have the status of individual criminals or murderers.
> 3. Therefore, the U.S. and other rights respecting nations have the
> right to agress such nations for the same reasons that any
> individual has the right to defend oneself or even use a
> preemptive strike against criminals.
> 4. Moreover, any failure for rogue nations to stop their violent
> acts in order to save their people from sanctions or bombing is
> their fault for being criminal nations, not the fault of
> nations doing the sanctioning or bombing.
Notice that this line of reasoning is indeed almost indistinguisheable
from something the Fuhrer himself could have written. He believed
Germany had indeed that kind of superiority, which entitled it to do
whatever it wanted.
--
email is iordonez at columbus dot rr dot com
My sugar-free music at http://www.mp3.com/SicTransitGloria
Stephen Speicher
>
> I wonder if Speicher is really as psychotic as he's trying to convince us
> he is, or if he just enjoys talking big while imagining himself in charge
> of the military. I wonder if he would actually undertake terrorist
> activities, in accordance with his 'principles' -- like blowing up
> government buildings containing innocent people, in order to combat evil
> government programs. Let's hope his hypocrisy prevents him from doing so.
>
Hypocrisy? Now that's a laugh!
Here we have Michael "Why I Am Not An Objectivist" Huemer (aka
Owl), unable to distinguish between a just act against terrorism
by a proper government whose people are the victims, and
terrorism itself, and he has the nerve to talk about principles
and hypocrisy in the same breath.
Michael Huemer is a philosophy teacher at University of Boulder,
Colorado. If I had a child at that school, and he were to take
one of Huemer's classes, I'd ask for a refund based on
intellectual fraud.
Ernest Brown
out that Speicher conflates an evil government with the citizens who live
under it.
This, of course, is the philosophy of collectivist corporatist fascism,
i.e. the "anti-concept" that -any- government, no matter how constituted,
has the right to represent its subjects to the world since there is an
"organic" unity between "the government," "society" and "the people." It
is only by stealing concepts from collectivism and pasting them to Rand's
argument that we owe no moral -recognition- to evil -governments- (which
doesn't entail that we throw proper morality down the toilet -ourselves-,
cf. "The Wreckage of the Consensus") that this sort of parasitism can even
get off the ground. These weasels just have to flush Rand's essay on
"Racism" down the toilet to make it work.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On 5 May 2000, Stephen Speicher wrote:
> Date: 5 May 2000 06:44:17 GMT
> From: Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Subject: Re: Bookmark Speicher
>
John T. Kennedy
>I wonder if Speicher is really as psychotic as he's trying to convince us
>he is, or if he just enjoys talking big while imagining himself in charge
>of the military.
The one good thing about his plan is that in real life his own men
would probabably shoot him when he started giving such orders.
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>Here we have Michael "Why I Am Not An Objectivist" Huemer (aka
>Owl), unable to distinguish between a just act against terrorism
>by a proper government whose people are the victims, and
>terrorism itself, and he has the nerve to talk about principles
>and hypocrisy in the same breath.
Against terrorism?
That's is one magnificent abstraction you've got there.
Wht you'd actually be doing is burining up a whole ot of people
innocent of terrorism.
John T. Kennedy
>And O'ists wonder why people think they are fascists. Maybe it's because
>many of them actually _are_ fascists in disguise.
I think it's unfair to Spiecher to suggest that he's disguised at this
point, he's been pretty open about his aims.
pape...@my-deja.com
> > > > So you are willing to go on record as believing that Fred's
statements
> > > > about it being all right to kill innocent people because they
are "the
> > > > enemy's civilians," and how all the Germans were guilty, and
all the
> > > > rest of it, are consistent with Objectivism?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You left out the part where I said about you:
> > >
> > > "Talk about being dense!"
> >
> > I know you are willing to on record on that.
> >
> > But, again, are you willing to go on record as believing all that
stuff
> > listed above? If the answer is "yes," then I don't think you are an
> > o/Objectivist either, since that stuff embodies collectivist
premises.
> > If the answer is "no," then your response to my posting isn't
justified.
> >
>
> I'll tell you what, David. I'll make it easier for you. I don't
> want to tax your limited capacity to think in principles, so I'll
> make this real concrete for you. You need not even strain trying
> to abstract from the past -- I'll give you one for the here and
> now.
>
> Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from
> my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time
> I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have
> forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them --
> and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not
> comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a
> nuclear bomb.
>
> Now, what they do is up to them. But, if they do not do as we
> ask, guess what? At noon on Saturday we drop the bomb, on whoever
> or whatever is there.
>
> Now David, I can hear you already saying, but what about this,
> and what if they do this, and what about that, and so on and so
> on and so on. Forget about that stuff, David. I know you are
> uncomfortable with a rigid, structured, sense of certainty, but
> don't bother asking all those what ifs. The only thing that
> matters is if they don't do as we ask, we bomb them on Saturday
> noon.
>
> Now put that in your concrete-bound pragmatic pipe and smoke it!
>
> </cite>
>
> I suppose my private correspondent *could* be wrong, and that
> Speicher didn't write this, but it's fairly simple and straightforward
> matter of attribution, and I see no reason to not accept it as given.
> If I'm wrong, and there's a goof somewhere, I'll be among the fastest
> to back up over this.
>
> Failing that, I'm here to point out that this is the most
> horrific thing that I've ever seen suggested by anyone calling
> themselves "Objectivist", and it deserves its own place in the public
> record. Completely aside from all the tactical and strategic rubbish
> involved in it, what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>
> Billy
Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
But I'll go further. I'd like to add a few more cities to the list:
Beijing (with regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan)
Baghdad (with regard to chemical weapons)
and
Havana (to give Castro 48 hours to get out of town)
I also think when we were in the MidEast, we should have taken back our
oil wells. Any Arabs that got in our way should have been slaughtered.
As a matter of justice, I think the Arabs should be sent back to
weaving baskets and riding camels.
So Billy that makes me even more of a "mass-murderer" than Stephen.
Make of it what you will.
Fred Weiss
Ernest Brown
On 5 May 2000 pape...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
(snip)
> Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
> support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
>
> But I'll go further. I'd like to add a few more cities to the list:
>
> Beijing (with regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan)
> Baghdad (with regard to chemical weapons)
> and
> Havana (to give Castro 48 hours to get out of town)
> (snip)
And, (of course), Leningrad, especially from 1917-18, 1921-1926.
John T. Kennedy
>Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
>support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
>
>But I'll go further. I'd like to add a few more cities to the list:
>
>Beijing (with regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan)
>Baghdad (with regard to chemical weapons)
>and
>Havana (to give Castro 48 hours to get out of town)
>
>I also think when we were in the MidEast, we should have taken back our
>oil wells. Any Arabs that got in our way should have been slaughtered.
>As a matter of justice, I think the Arabs should be sent back to
>weaving baskets and riding camels.
>
>So Billy that makes me even more of a "mass-murderer" than Stephen.
>
>Make of it what you will.
>
>Fred Weiss
"A mote it is to trouble the mind's eye.
In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets:
As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,
Disasters in the sun;"
Son?
You're a disaster.
pape...@my-deja.com
100...@sp2n21.missouri.edu>,
Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
> And, (of course), Leningrad, especially from 1917-18, 1921-1926.
Sure, why not? I'll play along. Alissa would have gladly lit the fuse.
You don't think so?
Fred
Jim Klein
>As a preliminary note, Specher's example isn't even original, he
>surely got it from Peikoff saying the same type of thing in that
>McCuiston panel "Liberal, Conservative, and Objectivist" available
>somewhere on the internet.
This is simply beyond belief. I could integrate that Speicher would come up
with such madness, but Peikoff? For all the rotten choices he's made that I
stand against, in a million years I wouldn't think he were capable of this.
>Now what blinds Speicher to the fact that such a scenario would
>mean the death of millions of innocents is the application of an
>utterly naive and false syllogism, which Rand seems herself guilty of,
>in foreign affiars.
I've seen allusions to the sort of error you mention, but I simply can't buy
that Rand _actually_ stood in favor of such a blatantly collectivist and
anti-life approach that Speicher forwards. Surely she spoke of "liberating
countries" and such, and we know that her politics wasn't well developed in
a rigorous and logical approach...but THIS??
I know you to be an honest man, so I'm inclined to believe you. OTOH, I
keep hearing "context, context" bells going off. So if you've got anything
even half as mad as Speicher from Rand, I'd appreciate the cite.
>For some
>reason he seems to get pleasure in attacking other using Objectivist
>ideas. Now given that I've actually seen the man recently at a Harry
>Binswanger talk, I would probably venture that his ideological bullying
>is an overcompensation for his physical weakness and inward hatred of
>life and happiness, and evidenced in his classically nerd-like demeanor
>and behavior.
>I hate to insult people
The so-called insult part isn't an insult, if it's accurate. Speicher's
response to this was that, as well as just another lie from him.
>and make guesses myself about what motivates
>people to write certain things, but when someone would like to my
>family blown up in the name of reason and capitalism, I must.
It's no secret that Stephen is a public liar, brazen hypocrite and totally
anti-rational (not to mention anti-Objectivist) lout. But a propopent of
such obvious and inexcusable murder? Even I hadn't thought that of him;
maybe I should've considered the outcomes of his philosophy more seriously
than I did. How fortunate for this lunatic that others don't hold the same
screwy political philosophy that he does; he'd be put down in a minute.
And FWIW, you can accept my personal apologies that I pay even a dime in
taxes to a country which considers a monster like this among its citizens.
I'm glad the worst of terrorists aren't as wacked-out as him, since they
could probably pull it off. And they'd use _exactly_ the same argument,
wouldn't they?
jk
Jim Klein
Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>
>Wrong again.
How is it wrong? Is it not "mass," not "murder," or perhaps don't words
mean things?
You know I have nearly no respect for your philosophical acumen, but this is
beneath even you.
jk
Jim Klein
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Well, then, why don't you make it clear for me?
>
> I'd like to know by what principle it is that you would condemn
>individual human beings to that sort of death, who have no
>responsibility for the crime you would punish.
There you go again, talkin' about individuals when Stephen is focussed so
clearly on the "principles" involved.
The egoists may knock Ivan, but he spotted this first a couple of weeks ago.
This is just Stephen using his imagination to create an "abstract principle"
that leaves the instantiations out of it. In Objectivese, this is known as
collectivism.
I asked for a better instance of intellectual fraud than Stephen Speicher,
anywhere on the planet, and didn't get a single response. Now I'll ask for
a more clear example of a man gone mad than this...any takers?
jk
Jim Klein
Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>You never thought that you'd see Whittaker Chambers' foul libel actually
>justified by putative Objectivists, did you?
I never did, I can tell you that. I took it as nothing but foul libel as you
say. I still won't buy into the whole analysis of course, but the facts
demonstrate that he was not 100% wrong anyway. Incredible.
jk
Jim Klein
Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>This sort of 'Objectivist' is probably doing enormous harm to the cause of
>Objectivism.
Probably, my ass. This monster, combined with the fact that his Pope holds
the rights to Rand's works, have done more than enormous harm to the cause
and philosophy of Objectivism; they are surprisingly close to destroying
it. For that we can thank not a putz like Stephen, but all of those in the
Brotherhood who stand silently by.
>Benevolent people hear this kind of thing and conclude that
>Objectivism is a philosophy of hatred.
That's not the worst of it. It's that _rational_ people will so quickly
conclude that Objectivism must be thoroughly irrational, else how could
someone such as Stephen be tolerated by them at all?
Funny how things come around..."tolerationists," indeed.
>I need say no more; Speicher will prove my diagnosis right with his own
>words, as he has done repeatedly already.
Oh, he's proving a whole lot more than that. It's like watching someone
who's a little screwy degenerate into full-blown dementia.
jk
Jim Klein
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>It doesn't matter. I've got you in the record advocating mass
>murder, and I guess I can make do with that when the word
>"Objectivist" comes up.
No shit...you and umpteen others, like Rand didn't die enough the first time
around.
jk
Jim Klein
vanosaur <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>And O'ists wonder why people think they are fascists. Maybe it's because
>many of them actually _are_ fascists in disguise.
Help me out here, Ivan...where's the disguise?
jk
Jim Klein
100...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Here we have Michael "Why I Am Not An Objectivist" Huemer (aka
>Owl), unable to distinguish between a just act against terrorism
>by a proper government whose people are the victims, and
>terrorism itself, and he has the nerve to talk about principles
>and hypocrisy in the same breath.
So now we hear from the horse's ass himself...nuking Tehran would be a "just
act." And why? Because he _says_ it, that's why. That, and the fact that
every person who opposes such an insane POV is somehow not up to snuff by
Speicher's lunatic standards. Nice "Objectivist" approach, eh?
For the record, let it be known that I predicted--with Stephen's unusually
forward (even for him) dishonesty lately [what with the Wolf thing and his
misattribution of me and his lies about David Friedman, all without even so
much of an acknowledgement]--that he would either have a catharsis of owning
up to his disgusting behavior, else he would simply wither away. Yes, I
predicted exactly that just last month...it's in the archives.
So now we get to see what goes on inside a human brain, once it withers
away. It seeks to murder untold other humans, as if that will give it life.
jk
Jim Klein
pape...@my-deja.com wrote:
>So Billy that makes me even more of a "mass-murderer" than Stephen.
>
>Make of it what you will.
He doesn't have to, nimwit; you've already made yourself into what you are.
jk
Betsy Speicher
> What allows Speicher to get away with calls for the murders of
> innocents is obviously his unchecked application of Rand's ideas.
> Furthremore, if you look at Speciher's posts, the number of times he
> insults people, calls them "concrete-bound," pragmatists, and tells
> people to put things in their pipe and smoke it, you can tell that the
> man obviously is suffering some psychological abnormalities. For some
> reason he seems to get pleasure in attacking other using Objectivist
> ideas. Now given that I've actually seen the man recently at a Harry
> Binswanger talk, I would probably venture that his ideological bullying
> is an overcompensation for his physical weakness and inward hatred of
> life and happiness, and evidenced in his classically nerd-like demeanor
> and behavior.
That is interesting since, while I attended Binswanger's recent talk at
UCLA, Stephen did not. I don't recall who was sitting next to me, but it
was definitely someone else.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Jim Klein
pape...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> And, (of course), Leningrad, especially from 1917-18, 1921-1926.
>
>Sure, why not? I'll play along. Alissa would have gladly lit the fuse.
>
>You don't think so?
This is beyond belief. Never--and I mean NEVER--have I seen such a complete
degeneration of the mind. And be assured that I've seen lots and lots of
degenerates in my time. All kinds, Fred---thieves and burglars and con men
and junkies and crackheads---yet you and Stephen (and Tym?) are the very
first defenders of mass murder that I've come across. Do you imagine that
pleading to "I'm an Objectivist" will somehow change that fact?
So now you're telling us that Rand "would have gladly lit the fuse" killing
herself and a million others. This is the lady who's philosophy is about
LIFE, right? But she would've found some "greater cause"...is that what
you're asking us to swallow?
I'll tell y'all right now---the Brotherhood better get some reinforcements
in here and quick, to deny the madness that Stephen is perpetrating and the
two loyalists are mimicking. This will spread across the Internet quicker
than yesterdays Love virus..."Objectivists believe their philosophy can
justify mass murder."
What a disgusting show, as if the WORD "principle" can somehow deny the
intentional murder of a million people. I'd say I'm sorry for all the posts
but in the face of what I'm seeing, I'll decline. I'm not---what I'm sorry
about is that Rand didn't have the foresight to see that this might happen.
If this isn't the epitome of "tragic," I don't know what is.
jk
Jim Klein
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>That is interesting since, while I attended Binswanger's recent talk at
>UCLA, Stephen did not. I don't recall who was sitting next to me, but it
>was definitely someone else.
Can you recall if you stand in defense of issuing an ultimatum to a country
like Iran and then bombing them to smithereens if they don't capitulate?
Or is that not as worthy of your brain time as who was sitting next to you at
a recent seminar?
jk
Betsy Speicher
> Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
> > And, (of course), Leningrad, especially from 1917-18, 1921-1926.
>
> Sure, why not? I'll play along. Alissa would have gladly lit the fuse.
>
> You don't think so?
I recall Miss Rand saying that she wished that Americans would have bombed
Leningrad WHILE SHE STILL LIVED THERE. Even if she could have died, it
also would have been a chance to have liberated the country. Since they
didn't, almost all of her family died due to Communism and those who
"survived" were condemned to a living death.
Phil Oliver
<garbage clipped>
If Houman Shadab offers the referenced post as evidence
of the worthiness of Iran, he presumably being some sort of
example thereof, I have to say that he's not doing his cause
any good.
Betsy Speicher
> In article <8et65p$b7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
> >> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
> >
> >Wrong again.
>
> How is it wrong? Is it not "mass," not "murder," or perhaps don't words
> mean things?
It IS mass murder, but the REAL murderer is the DICTATOR of the country
who initiated force on his own citizens and not the people who oppose him.
Jim Klein
>> How is it wrong? Is it not "mass," not "murder," or perhaps don't words
>> mean things?
>
>It IS mass murder, but the REAL murderer is the DICTATOR of the country
>who initiated force on his own citizens and not the people who oppose him.
So it IS mass murder, but it's not REAL mass murder? Do tell, Betsy.
jk
Jim Klein
Phil Oliver <ph...@objectivism.net> wrote:
>If Houman Shadab offers the referenced post as evidence
>of the worthiness of Iran, he presumably being some sort of
>example thereof, I have to say that he's not doing his cause
>any good.
Spit it out, you coward. Do you stand in defense of the murder of a million
innocent civilians because their government is statist, or not?
Do you have _that_ much mind left, that you can answer such a simple
question?
jk
Carmichael
Jim Klein wrote in message <8euiib$4h$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>I'll tell y'all right now---the Brotherhood better get some reinforcements
>in here and quick, to deny the madness that Stephen is perpetrating and the
The Mrs. has also jumped on the record. One trusts that this will not be
just another blip in the history of the ng, to be fussed about for a while
and then forgotten. It seems appropriate that a person or persons in a
position to do so, demand official comment from the ARI, and that a paper be
issued by the ARI making crystal clear for the world at large how
Objectivist philosophy impacts on the issues are raised by Mr. Speicher's
message to David Friedman. Inquiring minds need to know.
Carmichael
Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
>It IS mass murder, but the REAL murderer is the DICTATOR of the country
>who initiated force on his own citizens and not the people who oppose him.
The Speichers are just the agents of the DICTATOR, who is the REAL murderer.
In the mentime OJ keeps looking for the REAL murderer.
x
x
x
Dean M. Sandin
on Fri, May 5, 2000 09:43 EDT
in <Pine.LNX.4.20.00050...@hypermall.com>
>On 5 May 2000, Jim Klein wrote:
>
>> In article <8et65p$b7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>> >> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>> >
>> >Wrong again.
>>
>> How is it wrong? Is it not "mass," not "murder," or perhaps don't words
>> mean things?
>
>It IS mass murder, but the REAL murderer is the DICTATOR of the country
>who initiated force on his own citizens and not the people who oppose him.
I think that a lot of people are getting a healthy wakeup call
here about Objectivism, including those who think they more or
less understand the philosophy that they are objecting to (such as
the poster you were answering). Their reaction to this topic
proves that they're still enmeshed in altruism, utilitarianism,
intrincism, and subjectivism.
Altruism, because they don't see that the threatened lives of the
captives of totalitarians are NOT a reason to sacrifice the lives
of free people in preference to eradicating the evil. One doesn't
embolden and empower and feed profound evil. One demolishes it.
Utilitarianism, because they implicitly weigh an out-of-context,
falsely conceived good of NUMBERS of people as the decider in
whether to act against evil.
Intrincism, because neither of the above positions puts human life
in objective context, but rather treats its value as intrinsic and
something to be sacrificed to.
Subjectivism, because of the naked emotionalistic appeal in
calling self-defense mass murder, and because of the horrendous
subtext of "who are we to decide how evil a foreign system is, or
to claim authority to act against it"?
The really stupid results of this include the clueless attempts to
cite Objectivism in opposition to it -- and the "accusation" that
Objectivist principles would have obliterated Ayn Rand herself
eighty years ago. Thanks for pointing out in an earlier post that
Ayn Rand herself explicitly maintained what we are maintaining
now, concretely in regard to perhaps losing her own life in Russia
if that's what it took.
--- Dean
Carmichael
Dean M. Sandin wrote in message <20000505104942.05263.00001163@ng->of free
>One doesn't
>embolden and empower and feed profound evil. One demolishes it.
Lucky for you, in a democracy you can not be demolished until you actually
do the deed.
>The really stupid results of this include the clueless attempts to
>cite Objectivism in opposition to it -- and the "accusation" that
>Objectivist principles would have obliterated Ayn Rand herself
>eighty years ago. Thanks for pointing out in an earlier post that
>Ayn Rand herself explicitly maintained what we are maintaining
>now, concretely in regard to perhaps losing her own life in Russia
>if that's what it took.
>--- Dean
Intrinsicist because evil has power on its own right, independent of its
effect on the subject's life.
Altruist because the subject is sacrificing her life for the benefit of
mankind.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rod Nibbe
> On 5 May 2000 06:39:34 GMT, vanosaur <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >And O'ists wonder why people think they are fascists. Maybe it's because
> >many of them actually _are_ fascists in disguise.
> point, he's been pretty open about his aims.
In other words, not a prudent predator, just another garden-variety bad
guy.
-RKN
cc: Gordon Sollars
Jim Klein
In article <20000505104942...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
Dean M. Sandin <dsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>It IS mass murder, but the REAL murderer is the DICTATOR of the country
>>who initiated force on his own citizens and not the people who oppose him.
>
>I think that a lot of people are getting a healthy wakeup call
>here about Objectivism, including those who think they more or
>less understand the philosophy that they are objecting to (such as
>the poster you were answering). Their reaction to this topic
>proves that they're still enmeshed in altruism, utilitarianism,
>intrincism, and subjectivism.
Not hardly...it proves that ARIanism is antithetical to Objectivism. That's
the wakeup call that's going out, in spades.
And get this, Dean...Objectivism is about man living IN the world, not
taking him out of it with stolen concepts, floating abstractions, and
mystical adherence to uninstantiated principles.
But since you wrote and I'm responding, I'll go along with _your_ silly
choice of words. And that's because it's not the words that matter, but
what's being said...
>Altruism, because they don't see that the threatened lives of the
>captives of totalitarians are NOT a reason to sacrifice the lives
>of free people in preference to eradicating the evil.
What in the world are you yapping about? Is that what the "evil" is,
according to Objectivism according to you? Is it some bodies living in
Tehran under that statist thumb? Or is it the statists _themselves_, or at
the very least the philosophy they hold?
Do you see what you're saying? Dropping a nuke and killing a million people
will "eradicate evil." And David Friedman's dense, huh?
>One doesn't embolden and empower and feed profound evil.
And exactly who the hell is talking about that? What sort of straw-man are
you trying to pull off here? Do you suppose that nobody will notice?
>One demolishes it.
Fine, Dean...you just forgot one little detail. One must _identify_ that
which one wishes to destroy. Just like the Brotherhood does on every other
topic, that's exactly what you've chosen to ignore here---identification.
Those civilians _are not_ "the evil"...period.
>Utilitarianism, because they implicitly weigh an out-of-context,
>falsely conceived good of NUMBERS of people as the decider in
>whether to act against evil.
And who the hell is doing _that_?? It's not evil _because_ it's a million
people, so don't pretend that it is. It's just as evil when it's _one_
person, like here in America, that gets slaughtered every day. But you
haven't a word to say about that, do you?
Your moral bankruptcy is just a million times clearer here, that's all.
>Intrincism, because neither of the above positions puts human life
>in objective context, but rather treats its value as intrinsic and
>something to be sacrificed to.
Oh, if only someone were arguing what you attribute to them. Nice try
again, Dean; do you suppose nobody will notice _this_ straw man?
>Subjectivism, because of the naked emotionalistic appeal in
>calling self-defense mass murder,
Oops...there's that pernicious trait again. Sorry bud, it's _you_ who are
calling mass murder "self-defense" because you imagine that you some
intricate argument defending such a lunatic usage.
Now what...you're gonna tell us that the mere _existence_ of a statist state
is a threat to us? Okay, I won't argue that. Of course, you're not
defending eradicating all statist states; you're defending nuking millions
of civilians who happen to live under one statist state.
So what's next...just eradicate _all_ the statist states along with all of
their civilian population? Tell me, Dean...who shall we leave standing?
>and because of the horrendous subtext of "who are we to decide how evil a
>foreign system is, or to claim authority to act against it"?
I don't recall that claim being made even once in this thread. Can you show
us where it is, or are you reduced to just making things up defending the
indefensible? Do you think anyone will notice, _yet_??
>The really stupid results of this include the clueless attempts to
>cite Objectivism in opposition to it -- and the "accusation" that
>Objectivist principles would have obliterated Ayn Rand herself
>eighty years ago.
Nor was that claim made...yours is an endless stream of straw-man issue and
misrepresentations. What you're defending is anything _but_ Objectivist
principles.
And even if they were, and Rand were fool enough to defend them (which I
don't buy for a moment), about all that would prove is that Objectivism is
as evil a philosophy as any could be. Hell man, that's the point so many
have been trying to make for so many years.
And here you are telling them, "You're right."
>Thanks for pointing out in an earlier post that
>Ayn Rand herself explicitly maintained what we are maintaining
>now,
Bull-fucking-shit. Rand commenting on the liberation of the Soviet Union is
not an analagous situation to the nuking of Tehran. And you're not going to
get away with pretending that it is, just because the WORDS are so similar.
>concretely in regard to perhaps losing her own life in Russia
>if that's what it took.
And here you take your inversion of Objectivism full throttle, implying as
though there are "greater causes" in the philosophy of Objectivism than
one's own life and one's own interests. Obviously any person can _choose_
that this is so, and maybe even Rand did or would have, but how DARE you
imply that there's some "objective greater good" than even one single life,
let alone a million innocent ones.
You better go sit down and THINK for a goddammed minute, Dean. If it takes
you more than a minute, then there's something wrong with you.
jk
pape...@my-deja.com
>
> >> And, (of course), Leningrad, especially from 1917-18, 1921-1926.
> >
> >Sure, why not? I'll play along. Alissa would have gladly lit the
fuse.
> >
> >You don't think so?
>
complete
> degeneration of the mind. And be assured that I've seen lots and
lots of
> degenerates in my time. All kinds, Fred---thieves and burglars and
con men
> and junkies and crackheads---yet you and Stephen (and Tym?) are the
very
> first defenders of mass murder that I've come across. Do you imagine
that
> pleading to "I'm an Objectivist" will somehow change that fact?
>
> So now you're telling us that Rand "would have gladly lit the fuse"
killing
> herself and a million others. This is the lady who's philosophy is
about
> LIFE, right? But she would've found some "greater cause"...is that
what
> you're asking us to swallow?
>
reinforcements
> in here and quick, to deny the madness that Stephen is perpetrating
and the
quicker
> than yesterdays Love virus..."Objectivists believe their philosophy
can
> justify mass murder."
>
> What a disgusting show, as if the WORD "principle" can somehow deny
the
> intentional murder of a million people. I'd say I'm sorry for all
the posts
> but in the face of what I'm seeing, I'll decline. I'm not---what I'm
sorry
> about is that Rand didn't have the foresight to see that this might
happen.
>
> If this isn't the epitome of "tragic," I don't know what is.
>
> jk
Well, I'll give you this much, Jim, you're always good for a laugh.
Jim Klein
Rod Nibbe <rni...@ak.net> wrote:
>In other words, not a prudent predator, just another garden-variety bad
>guy.
Feh. As I mentioned to Fred, my path has crossed the paths of very many
"bad guys" of many varieties. NEVER have I come across ANYONE like Stephen.
He's tied for the lead in dishonesty, and takes the crown in hypocrisy.
There is but one saving grace he's got...that he hasn't one-zillionth the
ego to do any of the dastardly things he fantasizes as rational. Face
it...if it weren't for Govco subsidies, he probably couldn't even eat.
And one more positive---he makes his nature plainly available to see, for
anyone who cares to look.
jk
Jim Klein
pape...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Well, I'll give you this much, Jim, you're always good for a laugh.
Good thinking, Fred...maybe this will distract from what's going on here,
eh?
Watch what you write; you are going to forever be associated with it. This
is one thread that'll go far beyond the confines of hpo---self-proclaimed
"serious students" teaching the world about rationalism while they explain
why it's moral to nuke a million innocent civilians.
"A laugh" isn't quite the term.
jk
Ernest Brown
this, but that went without saying, Jim...
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On 5 May 2000, Jim Klein wrote:
(snip)
> Good thinking, Fred...maybe this will distract from what's going on here,
> eh?
>
> Watch what you write; you are going to forever be associated with it. This
> is one thread that'll go far beyond the confines of hpo---self-proclaimed
> "serious students" teaching the world about rationalism while they explain
> why it's moral to nuke a million innocent civilians.
>
> "A laugh" isn't quite the term.
>
>
> jk
>
>
x
x
John T. Kennedy
>>I think it's unfair to Speicher to suggest that he's disguised at this
>>point, he's been pretty open about his aims.
>
> guy.
I think it's unfair to defame gardens by associating them with Speicher.
--
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Lapidary
wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> For various reasons, I'm not going to DejaNews or any other
> online archive to find this.
It was posted under the 'roofs and celings' thread on h.p.o
quite recently. The deja archive is at:
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=619001121&CONTEXT=957543656.1980366890&hitnum=11
--
Regards, Peter D Jones .
"Last year I went fishing with Salvador Dali.
He was using a dotted line.
He caught every other fish." -- Steven Wright.
Betsy Speicher
> It seems appropriate that a person or persons in a position to do so,
> demand official comment from the ARI, and that a paper be issued by
> the ARI making crystal clear for the world at large how Objectivist
> philosophy impacts on the issues are raised by Mr. Speicher's message
> to David Friedman. Inquiring minds need to know.
Try <http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/terrorism.html>.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to
> their support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to
> the list.
>
Welcome.
> But I'll go further. I'd like to add a few more cities to the
> list:
>
> Beijing (with regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan)
An unbelievable disgrace that we have let them get to the point
of power they have now. There is an exact parallel of China with
Russia, in that the same apologists for Communism have permitted
us to build up a country that would otherwise die on oits own.
We have sacrificed those who value freedom for this? Disgusting.
One bomb years ago would have ended it forever.
> Baghdad (with regard to chemical weapons)
Exactly.
> and Havana (to give Castro 48 hours to get out of town)
>
A national disgrace. 90 miles off our own coast is a slave state.
But for them, I doubt we even need a bomb. Just arm the Miami
relatives of Elian -- considering the spirit they have shown --
and that dozen freedom loving people would be enough to free Cuba
from that despicable murderer Castro.
> I also think when we were in the MidEast, we should have taken
> back our oil wells. Any Arabs that got in our way should have
> been slaughtered. As a matter of justice, I think the Arabs
> should be sent back to weaving baskets and riding camels.
>
God damned right!
> So Billy that makes me even more of a "mass-murderer" than
> Stephen.
>
You know something Fred. Even though I have done what you do --
throwing it in their stupid faces -- don't say that even in scare
quotes. You are so right in everything you say that you need only
stand up tall and be proud of what you are. It is they who are
the mass-murders, and no scare quotes are required. It is all
these morally inverted perverts which grant power to the evil in
the world, and allow it to flourish the way that is has. The
blood is on _their_ hands.
> Make of it what you will.
>
They already have. It is disgusting.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Speicher
> On 5 May 2000 06:44:17 GMT, Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Here we have Michael "Why I Am Not An Objectivist" Huemer (aka
> >Owl), unable to distinguish between a just act against terrorism
> >by a proper government whose people are the victims, and
> >terrorism itself, and he has the nerve to talk about principles
> >and hypocrisy in the same breath.
>
> Against terrorism?
>
Yes.
> That's is one magnificent abstraction you've got there.
>
That's correct. Thank you.
> Wht you'd actually be doing is burining up a whole ot of people
> innocent of terrorism.
>
The country itself is the base for exporting terrorism throughout
the world, including the United States. I feel assured that one
act such as I suggest will end terrorism wherever it is. If they
knew that we actually had the morally surety of action to back up
our threat, then they would relinquish immediately, being the
cowards that they are.
The only way to deal with bullies of force is to apply force to
the bullies. My interest is in the innocent people who are
victims of terrorism, and what I suggest would end it once and
for all. Of course, to see that and to understand it, requires
moral principles that can distinguish between right and wrong,
and it seems that Objectivists are -- certainly as evidenced on
this forum -- amongst the few who fit that bill.
EricL
Well this is certainly a most interesting thread.
There is a notion, in the enforcement of most laws, that the sentence
for a crime and the actions of law enforcement, must in some sense be
proportional to the infraction that is being dealt with.
So if someone steals something, and the police know who that person
is, it would generally not be considered proportional to go to his
house and bomb it. First they will insist that he come out. If he
doesn't come out of his own accord, further actions will eventually be
taken. They will, ultimately involve use of force, and in the process
others may get hurt.
If others protect or harbor the fugitive, they may get hurt too.
If a mans wife and child are injured or killed in such an action,
because they were in the home, generally it is considered that the MAN
endangered them. That it was HIS fault that they were harmed.
Just as if a man takes his family out for a joy ride and decides to
rob a 7-11, and ultimately his family comes to some harm through his
actions, the fault is his.
Now I am talking about proper police action to fight real crime. In
the case of, Waco, as an example, I am not advocating blaming it all
on David Koresh because a) I don't think the action was legitimate b)
there is evidence that Koresh would have peaceably dealt with the
police prior to hostilities c) I am not sure crimes were committed.
So clearly police attempt to deal with things, and courts attempt to
sentence, in a proportional manner. But just as clearly, policing by
its very nature, at times involves use of deadly force, and in that
proper use of force, there can be collateral damage. E.G. Innocent
people can be harmed. I know some argue, because of that fact, that
no force should be used. But that is a topic for another thread.
Now how does this relate to Iran?
And if it doesn't relate to Iran please substitute any country you
choose that it does relate to.
1) Does anyone doubt that Iran is both a sponsor of and active
supporter of terrorism against American citizens? Are these not
criminal activities?
2) Is not the proper role of the US government to protect the rights
of individual US citizens?
Our government is NOT doing that. Just look at Lockerbie as an
example. We won't get into all that here, but our acceptance of UN
policies and the fact that the terrorists are being tried outside of
the US is not in the best interest of the US or its citizens.
It seems that it would definitely be proper to ask Iran to stop
supporting state sponsored terrorism and to give up all its
terrorists.
Does anyone doubt that? Have we not done that?
If terrorism against Americans continues that can be traced to Iran,
then further proper actions could and should take place.
Those actions could include bombing of government facilities and
buildings. If that doesn't work attacks against Iranian citizens
might be necessary. I would suggest that we should warn those
citizens that the attacks are coming, and then follow through. We
should make it clear that their government is the cause of their
misery.
One could suggest that the response should be somewhat proportional
initially.
Beyond that, if none of these actions work, what is an appropriate
action?
Obviously the government must weigh its actions, and the potential
consequences, to ensure that American citizens will actually benefit
from those actions and their logical consequences. In other words
that the actions will protect American citizens individual rights and
not likely result in far more egregious rights violations. I think
that analysis must be made.
Stephen has not, elaborated on this thread, an analysis of these
issues. That is not to say he didn't make them; I don't know. They
are obviously very complex, and just as obviously the rational actions
might be different depending on the relative power of the countries
involved.
But the question does remain.
A country is supporting terrorism against American citizens.
America asks it in every possible nice way to stop.
When that does not succeed, America takes the next logical step and
bombs government and military targets. That too, does not succeed in
stopping the terrorism or the government actions which support it.
At this point what is the next logical step?
Should America, or any country, stand idly by and accept state
supported terrorism against its citizens?
Is the proper role of the American government simply to just keep
asking nicely that Iran must stop its support of terrorism?
Reactions of OH that's terrible, Stephen is advocating mass murder to
stop terrorism, are emotional reactions that do not add clarity.
Does anyone doubt that Iran (or some other country), if they had the
power, and thought it in their best interest, would not do EXACTLY the
same to us? Don't you think Iran (or some other country) would nuke
us, instead of terrorize us, IF they could?
Terrorism IS what those of inferior strength do against a people,
society or government they wish to intimidate or COERCE. Look it up
in a dictionary. Given more strength, the actions would be more
direct and aggressive. The intent of terrorism, intimidation and
coercion, is clear.
Ultimately the question comes down to what would be the moral or good
actions for the US government to undertake? And in Objectivist terms
good being good for American citizens long term in support of the
protection of their individual rights. And then rationally, will the
actions support the good? In objectivists terms I don't think that is
a two step because the good is based on a rational evaluation.
In less Objectivist terms it still comes down to
a) what is in the best interest of the citizens of the US?
b) what actions further that best interest long term?
I am NOT saying WHAT such an analysis should yield. I am NOT stating
that Stephen is correct, I am just thinking about it.
This should be considered rationally. Like any other action, it could
make the difference between life and death. Failure to think does
have consequences.
P.S. We are skipping here all the possible side discussions about the
rights violations that the US government commits, the foreign policy
errors it has made, the kinds of thugs we have supported in the real
world, and all that other stuff. And we are even skipping whether
other countries would be just in doing this to us<g>! Our sins are
not relevant to this discussion.
John Alway
pape...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8eu851$fb1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
[...]
>Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
>support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
I think we've had discussions here on this matter before .... but...
I agree with Stephen as well.
The most recent act of terrorism by those nations was the murder of
hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Saudia Arabia. Something blockhead Clinton
has done nothing about (actually, he was partially responsible, per his
orders). Had we taken care of Tehran, or some other such terrorist nation
before that, there is little doubt that would never have happened.
There is also a great deal of confusion regarding what collectivism is.
Collectivism is subordinating your life to the masses. To fight terrorism
is to fight for your life, those you love, and other of your highest values
against those who would take them. This is not subordinating your life to
others. No rational person *wants* to kill innocent people, but during war
that is unavoidable just by the nature of the process, and terrorist states
that have us targeted are at war with us, whether stated or not. These
states are guilty for *all* of the deaths during the war they waged, because
they were the initiators of force. So blame *them*, not us.
If I were in such a nation and knew of the guilt of the leaders of my
nation, and I were harmed, or friends or loved ones of mine killed by a
foreign nation retaliating righteously to stop my nation, I would not hold
the foreigners responsible for my sorrow. I would hold the government of my
country, etc. responsible. And, to be sure, lots of people in those
terrorist states are guilty of promoting those acts, otherwise the countries
would not be engaged in it. Without some level of popular support, you
couldn't have the Castros, Stalins and Hitlers in power.
It'd be great if we could put phasers on stun and take out all of the
bad guys only, but that's beyond the state of the art.
War is hell.
...John
Russell Hanneken
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 5 May 2000, Carmichael wrote:
>
> > It seems appropriate that a person or persons in a position to do
> > so, demand official comment from the ARI, and that a paper be
> > issued by the ARI making crystal clear for the world at large how
> > Objectivist philosophy impacts on the issues are raised by Mr.
> > Speicher's message to David Friedman. Inquiring minds need to know.
>
> Try <http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/terrorism.html>.
Betsy,
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't quite address the issue at hand.
Saying the US should take military action against governments that
support terrorism is not the same as saying the US should drop a
nuclear bomb on Tehran. Some military strategies don't involve
incinerating millions of innocent people.
--
Russell Hanneken
rhan...@pobox.com
Stephen Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >It IS mass murder, but the REAL murderer is the DICTATOR of the country
> >who initiated force on his own citizens and not the people who oppose him.
>
> I think that a lot of people are getting a healthy wakeup call
> here about Objectivism, including those who think they more or
> less understand the philosophy that they are objecting to (such as
> the poster you were answering). Their reaction to this topic
> proves that they're still enmeshed in altruism, utilitarianism,
> intrincism, and subjectivism.
>
> Altruism, because they don't see that the threatened lives of the
> captives of totalitarians are NOT a reason to sacrifice the lives
> of free people in preference to eradicating the evil. One doesn't
> embolden and empower and feed profound evil. One demolishes it.
>
> Utilitarianism, because they implicitly weigh an out-of-context,
> falsely conceived good of NUMBERS of people as the decider in
> whether to act against evil.
>
> Intrincism, because neither of the above positions puts human life
> in objective context, but rather treats its value as intrinsic and
> something to be sacrificed to.
>
> Subjectivism, because of the naked emotionalistic appeal in
> calling self-defense mass murder, and because of the horrendous
> subtext of "who are we to decide how evil a foreign system is, or
> to claim authority to act against it"?
>
> The really stupid results of this include the clueless attempts to
> cite Objectivism in opposition to it -- and the "accusation" that
> Objectivist principles would have obliterated Ayn Rand herself
> eighty years ago. Thanks for pointing out in an earlier post that
> Ayn Rand herself explicitly maintained what we are maintaining
> now, concretely in regard to perhaps losing her own life in Russia
> if that's what it took.
>
I've paused before to acknowledge the unique and powerful
formulation of ideas which come from Dean Sandin -- and I do so
again. When Dean is at his best (and that is often) he has the
ability to peel away the layer of clouds surrounding an issue,
and present it in the full sunlight of rational principles. I
again applaud Dean -- and if I haven't already done so, likewise
to Fred Weiss -- for being amongst the few on this group who
understand Objectivism and have the moral convictions to let
their ideas be known. And likewise again to those other few
Objectivists who have spoken up in defense of what is right.
Russell Hanneken
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> I agree with Stephen as well.
>
> The most recent act of terrorism by those nations was the murder
> of hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Saudia Arabia. Something blockhead
> Clinton has done nothing about (actually, he was partially
> responsible, per his orders). Had we taken care of Tehran, or some
> other such terrorist nation before that, there is little doubt that
> would never have happened.
John,
I think you're missing the point. I'm sure everyone here is against
terrorism, and probably many would be in favor of making war on
governments that support terrorism. But is annihilating Tehran the
best way to do it?
> There is also a great deal of confusion regarding what
> collectivism is. Collectivism is subordinating your life to the
> masses. To fight terrorism is to fight for your life, those you
> love, and other of your highest values against those who would take
> them. This is not subordinating your life to others. No rational
> person *wants* to kill innocent people, but during war that is
> unavoidable just by the nature of the process, and terrorist states
> that have us targeted are at war with us, whether stated or not.
Again, I think you are missing the point. The "collectivism" charge
came out of a discussion of World War II. Fred said that all the
Germans were guilty and that all deserved whatever they got. So he was
assigning blame to everyone in a group, besed on the actions of only
some people in the group. I think it's fair to call that collectivism.
I think a similar rationale was offered for nuking Tehran--no one in
Tehran deserves sympathy, because its evil government couldn't exist
without the support of "the population."
At the same time, two other (non-collectivist) arguments have also
emerged:
1) Nuking Tehran would be bad for the people in Tehran, but good for
the rest of us and the people we love, because it would strike a blow
against terrorism.
(This may be true, but we're talking about taking an awful lot of
innocent lives. There are other ways to fight terrorism that
don't shed the blood of so many innocents.)
2) Reasonable people in Tehran would welcome a nuclear attack from the
United States if it liberated them from tyranny. (I don't find this
argument convincing at all.)
I hope that clarifies the dispute.
Stephen Speicher
>
> So clearly police attempt to deal with things, and courts
> attempt to sentence, in a proportional manner. But just as
> clearly, policing by its very nature, at times involves use of
> deadly force, and in that proper use of force, there can be
> collateral damage. E.G. Innocent people can be harmed. I know
> some argue, because of that fact, that no force should be used.
> But that is a topic for another thread.
>
> Now how does this relate to Iran?
This is not a matter for the police or a court of law. Iran is in
the business of exporting terrorism. It is an act of war.
>
> It seems that it would definitely be proper to ask Iran to stop
> supporting state sponsored terrorism and to give up all its
> terrorists.
>
Ask? How about DEMAND! And demand under threat of destruction.
We have put ourselves under the mercy of foreign nations because
of the altruists who have run our country. We apologize to the
world for our wealth and power. We let a group of savages have
power over the strongest and most productive and most moral
country on Earth because of the very reason which motivates the
morons on this group -- the stupid, imbecillic, feelings of
people who have no understanding of right and wrong, and no real
grasp of the moral principles which would enable them to
distinguish between the two.
> Does anyone doubt that? Have we not done that?
>
Yes, many doubt that. Just listen to the pathetic voices raised
here in opposition to a strong moral stand in defense of liberty.
>
> Stephen has not, elaborated on this thread, an analysis of
> these issues. That is not to say he didn't make them; I don't
> know. They are obviously very complex, and just as obviously
> the rational actions might be different depending on the
> relative power of the countries involved.
>
I appreciate your concern and the stand that you take, but there
is nothing complex about this issue. It is a straightforward
application of Objectivist principles and, just as I have been
saying for so long about the anti-Objectivists on this group, it
has separated them from the real Objectivists and revealed the
nature of what they really are.
>
> Does anyone doubt that Iran (or some other country), if they
> had the power, and thought it in their best interest, would not
> do EXACTLY the same to us? Don't you think Iran (or some other
> country) would nuke us, instead of terrorize us, IF they could?
>
No. Not the same. I know what you mean, but don't even leave any
squiggle room for not differentiating between our action -- the
morally justified response to terrorist murderers -- with the
savage actions of a savage people who place more value on death
than on life.
>
> I am NOT saying WHAT such an analysis should yield. I am NOT
> stating that Stephen is correct, I am just thinking about it.
>
Think about it hard. It is an important and fundamental issue.
John Alway
Russell Hanneken wrote in message <8ev6qt$ima$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>John,
I disagree with that completely. I don't see how he can say that given
the fact that there were Germans who actively tried to thwart Hitler and his
minions. Not enough, to be sure, but some acted heroically at the time.
Peikoff himself made the point that killing innocents is unavoidable in such
a situation.
>So he was
>assigning blame to everyone in a group, besed on the actions of only
>some people in the group. I think it's fair to call that collectivism.
You may be right. The reason you do it is because you simply can't,
practically speaking, separate the innocent from the guilty in that context.
So, it's a question of practicality. The example of the tank coming at
you with innocent people strapped to the outside was given several months
ago. Still, I think that Fred's motivaion is individualistic/egoistic, in
that he wants to defend *his* values from those who would take them.
>I think a similar rationale was offered for nuking Tehran--no one in
>Tehran deserves sympathy, because its evil government couldn't exist
>without the support of "the population."
>At the same time, two other (non-collectivist) arguments have also
>emerged:
>1) Nuking Tehran would be bad for the people in Tehran, but good for
>the rest of us and the people we love, because it would strike a blow
>against terrorism.
Right, because terrorists are sponsored and trained in these places.
You have to eliminate the nest and do it emphatically.
>(This may be true, but we're talking about taking an awful lot of
>innocent lives. There are other ways to fight terrorism that
>don't shed the blood of so many innocents.)
The innocent people there have the obligation to oppose that same
government and must realize that that government is a deadly threat to us.
Annihilating it is just, and their deaths are not our responsibility.
Again, if I were in such a country, I wouldn't blame anyone from retaliating
against my nation with massive force.
Also, if there are other better ways, then what are they?
>2) Reasonable people in Tehran would welcome a nuclear attack from the
>United States if it liberated them from tyranny. (I don't find this
>argument convincing at all.)
I didn't say that. What it does is liberate *us* from tyranny.
Nobody can blame us for wanting that. Again, you have to put the blame
where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the terrorist nation.
That's a vital point.
...John
f
f
b
f
f
b
f
f
b
f
f
b
f
f
b
f
f
b
f
f
b
Stephen Speicher
>
> pape...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8eu851$fb1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> [...]
>
> >Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
> >support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
>
> I think we've had discussions here on this matter before .... but...
>
> I agree with Stephen as well.
>
Good for you John. And for Tym whose name I may have failed to
mention. And to any others who stand up for what is moral and
right. I applaud you all.
James E. Prescott
in message news:8ev2t1$dt0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Betsy,
>
> Thanks for the link, but it doesn't quite address the
> issue at hand. Saying the US should take military action
> against governments that support terrorism is not the same
> as saying the US should drop a nuclear bomb on Tehran.
> Some military strategies don't involve incinerating
> millions of innocent people.
Nor was there anything at all, in Mr. Speicher's remarks, about
ever liberating the Iranian people in the way Betsy earlier
cited Ayn Rand's wish that the American military had liberated
Russia.
I'll tell you all the correct Objectivist attitude toward war
and innocents.
Large numbers of innocent people may indeed be deliberately
killed, both morally and legally, when it is done as an act of
war the purpose and reasonably expected consequence of which is
to bring the war to a successful conclusion with a minimum of
casualties. And that's it.
Small numbers of unintended civilian casualties from a limited
strike against terrorist targets is another matter.
Neither of these cases fit what Stephen suggested.
What he proposed was terrorism itself ("do as we demand or your
people will be slaughtered") and mass murder. A simple question
reveals this, What is the purpose? Would killing millions of
innocent people in Tehran somehow end Iranian-sponsored
terrorism? Would it liberate the people of Iran? Of course not.
Would the Iranian government cave in to such a threat? Of course
not. Why should it? The leaders would simply remove themselves
from Tehran and sit back to await the addition of a few million
more martyrs to their cause.
Mr. Speicher probably realizes by now that what he wrote was
wrong. If he doesn't wish to admit that, it's probably a
function of how little regard he has for the opinions held of
him in this group.
That's fine.
But while I don't mean to make too much of what was probably
just careless ranting, it seems to me Mr. Speicher has not
overcome the influence of collectivist emotions, sentiments and
ideas. The bombing proposal is collectivism at its worst, of
course, but one can write that off as callous hyperbole. On the
other hand, Mr. Speicher's racist slurs in this thread were
collectivism of the kind that very offensive and quite
inexcusable.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Russell Hanneken
>
> of hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Saudia Arabia. Something blockhead
> Clinton has done nothing about (actually, he was partially
> responsible, per his orders). Had we taken care of Tehran, or some
> other such terrorist nation before that, there is little doubt that
> would never have happened.
John,
I think you're missing the point. I'm sure everyone here is against
terrorism, and probably many would be in favor of making war on
governments that support terrorism. But is annihilating Tehran the
best way to do it?
> There is also a great deal of confusion regarding what
> collectivism is. Collectivism is subordinating your life to the
> masses. To fight terrorism is to fight for your life, those you
> love, and other of your highest values against those who would take
> them. This is not subordinating your life to others. No rational
> person *wants* to kill innocent people, but during war that is
> unavoidable just by the nature of the process, and terrorist states
> that have us targeted are at war with us, whether stated or not.
Again, I think you are missing the point. The "collectivism" charge
came out of a discussion of World War II. Fred said that all the
Germans were guilty and that all deserved whatever they got. So he was
assigning blame to everyone in a group, besed on the actions of only
some people in the group. I think it's fair to call that collectivism.
I think a similar rationale was offered for nuking Tehran--no one in
Tehran deserves sympathy, because its evil government couldn't exist
without the support of "the population."
At the same time, two other (non-collectivist) arguments have also
emerged:
1) Killing innocents is sometimes necessary to advance the interests of
people in the United States.
(This may be true, but we're talking about taking an awful lot of
innocent lives. I'm not willing to endorse nuking Tehran as a
solution, especially since there are other ways to fight terrorism that
don't shed the blood of so many innocents.)
2) Reasonable people in Tehran would welcome an attack from the United
States if it liberated them from tyranny. (I don't find this argument
convincing at all.)
I hope that clarifies the dispute.
pape...@my-deja.com
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <8eu851$fb1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> pape...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >So Billy that makes me even more of a "mass-murderer" than Stephen.
> >
>
you are.
>
> jk
Thanks, Jim, but flattery will get you nowhere.
Fred
Houman Shadab
Phil Oliver <ph...@objectivism.net> wrote:
> "Houman Shadab" <hsh...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> <garbage clipped>
>
> If Houman Shadab offers the referenced post as evidence
> of the worthiness of Iran, he presumably being some sort of
> example thereof, I have to say that he's not doing his cause
> any good.
>
>
Assuming my post was ridiculous and stupid, how does the bear on
the relevancy of whether or not the people of Tehran are deserve to be
bombed? Could you possibly be implying that if my post was more
intelligent, or whatever, that Iran would be more "worthy" and less
deserving to be bombed? If the people of Iran were all idiots are their
lives more dispensible?
Once again, please drop the collectivist concepts. We are not
assessing the worthiness of "Iran" (whatever that floating abstraction
refers to). We are judging whether or not people who oppose their
oppresive/criminal government should be sacrificed in order to combat
the terrorism sponsored by certain parts of the government.
And for the record, I just want to note that this is another nothing-
but-an-insult-post, lacking any substantive dicussion. I will point
these out from now on when I get the chance whenever they are posted by
ARI supporters, who cliam to be nothing but value-seeking rational
people, totally distinguishable and completely free of the malevolence
and cynicism towards others typically associated with cultish movements.
--
________________________________
Houman Shadab
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~shadab/
________________________________
Houman Shadab
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 5 May 2000, Houman Shadab wrote:
>
> > What allows Speicher to get away with calls for the murders of
> > innocents is obviously his unchecked application of Rand's ideas.
> > Furthremore, if you look at Speciher's posts, the number of times he
> > insults people, calls them "concrete-bound," pragmatists, and tells
> > people to put things in their pipe and smoke it, you can tell that
the
> > man obviously is suffering some psychological abnormalities. For
some
> > reason he seems to get pleasure in attacking other using Objectivist
> > ideas. Now given that I've actually seen the man recently at a Harry
> > Binswanger talk, I would probably venture that his ideological
bullying
> > is an overcompensation for his physical weakness and inward hatred
of
> > life and happiness, and evidenced in his classically nerd-like
demeanor
> > and behavior.
>
> That is interesting since, while I attended Binswanger's recent talk
at
> UCLA, Stephen did not. I don't recall who was sitting next to me,
but it
> was definitely someone else.
>
> Betsy Speicher
>
Then I gladly stand corrected and I retract my inferences about Mr.
Speicher's psychology based on his appearance.
Carmichael
Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
>On 5 May 2000, Carmichael wrote:
>
>> It seems appropriate that a person or persons in a position to do so,
>> demand official comment from the ARI, and that a paper be issued by
>> the ARI making crystal clear for the world at large how Objectivist
>> philosophy impacts on the issues are raised by Mr. Speicher's message
>> to David Friedman. Inquiring minds need to know.
>
>Try <http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/terrorism.html>.
That is a statement of political opinion. It does (in timid language) say in
conclusion that we should nuke entire cities, but what is missing is the
philosophical justification. It does not explain how Objectivist morality
demands that course of action, starting with the Objectivist axioms.
Stephen Speicher
>
> I'll tell you all the correct Objectivist attitude toward war
~~~~~~~~~~~
> and innocents.
>
James Prescott -- Objectivist?
This is too funny. Even fiction writers can't make this stuff up.
John T. Kennedy
Russell Hanneken <rhan...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Try <http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/terrorism.html>.
> Thanks for the link, but it doesn't quite address the issue at hand.
> Saying the US should take military action against governments that
> support terrorism is not the same as saying the US should drop a
> nuclear bomb on Tehran. Some military strategies don't involve
> incinerating millions of innocent people.
Actually the article does seem to cover that:
"The only way to end terrorism is through a policy of real military
strikes against the aggressors. If as the Clinton Administration tells
us repeatedly, we are engaged in a war, then let us see a war, fought
not with words, but with the full, untrammeled power of our military,
including, as and when necessary, the use of our most potent and
destructive weapons against the seat of the governments involved."
Use of the most potent and destructive weapons against seats of
governments would seem to cover nuking Tehran.
I must conclude that Peikoff is indeed on the same bloody page as the
Speichers.
--
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Tim Starr
>
>pape...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8eu851$fb1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> [...]
>
>>Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
>>support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
>
> I think we've had discussions here on this matter before .... but...
>
Then you're a hypocrite, & all your whining about Waco was false.
> The most recent act of terrorism by those nations was the murder of
>hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Saudia Arabia.
"Those nations"? You don't even know which one was responsible? I presume
you're talking about the bombing in Dahrain, right? If you don't have clear
& convincing public proof of the guilt of a regime, destroying even the
guilty regime won't do you much good because it will alienate others &
motivate them to take revenge on you on behalf of the regime you attacked.
>Something blockhead Clinton has done nothing about (actually, he was
>partially responsible, per his orders). Had we taken care of Tehran, or
>some other such terrorist nation before that...
Then another might have taken its place & retaliated in kind against the
US in reprisal.
> There is also a great deal of confusion regarding what collectivism is.
>Collectivism is subordinating your life to the masses.
Blaming all for the actions of some is also collectivism, it's collective
responsibility, the sort of thing the Mongols practiced when they conquered
Russia & the sort of thing the Bolsheviks brought back after centuries in
which it had been abolished. It's a literal reversion to barbarism.
>No rational person *wants* to kill innocent people...
Then Mr. Bimbo Speicher isn't rational, because he certainly wants to kill
innocent people. So are you, if you agree with him.
>but during war that is unavoidable...
It's one thing to say that collateral damage is unavoidable. It's another
thing entirely to say that it's OK to nuke noncombatants if their regime
doesn't do what you want. That's holding the people as nuclear hostages
for the actions of their rulers.
>...terrorist states that have us targeted...
Name any terrorist state that has targeted US territory - not US military
bases or embassies in foreign countries, I mean actual US territory. What
terrorist attacks have they staged against US territory?
>These states are guilty for *all* of the deaths during the war they waged,
>because they were the initiators of force.
Not if excessive force is used to fight them. They're not to blame for the
use of excessive force by their enemies, their enemies are to blame for that.
[snip]
>Without some level of popular support, you couldn't have the Castros, Stalins
>and Hitlers in power.
Bullshit. That's the argument Commie-symps made to argue that the Bolsheviks
were really democratic, because they took power & held it. It was inferred
from that fact that they must've had popular support, but they claimed to
rule in the name of a class that accounted for 5% of the population, at most,
& they didn't even have majority support within that class.
--
Tim Starr
Free Elian - Slavery is Not a Family Value - Cuba is a Slave State
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/cuba/home.htm http://www.libertyforelian.org/
John T. Kennedy
>bombed Leningrad WHILE SHE STILL LIVED THERE. Even if she could have
>died, it also would have been a chance to have liberated the country.
How remarkably unselfish!
>Since they didn't, almost all of her family died due to Communism and
>those who "survived" were condemned to a living death.
Like the survivor Rand?
--
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain
Russell Hanneken
Personally, I agree that killing innocent people is sometimes
justified. I think some of Stephen's other critics also agree. (I'm
pretty sure David Friedman does.)
You asked if there are better ways to deal with terrorism than nuking
cities. Yes, I think so.
The most important thing is for the US to stop making so many enemies.
A study commissioned by the US Department of Defense demonstrated a
strong correlation between US interventionism and terrorist attacks on
the US (see the articles linked below for a citation). The US should
stay out of foreign disputes that don't bear on vital security
interests, and it should withdraw from unneeded military alliances
(like NATO). Phasing out aid to Israel would be a good start.
It may be that anti-US terrorism will always exist, even if the US
follows a restrained foreign policy. What's the best way to deal with
such terrorism? I'm not really an expert on that. Certainly the US
should consider the costs and benefits of any action it takes. In some
cases, military action could provoke more terrorism than it
eliminates. It could even provoke a war, possibly a world war.
Aside from the horrific cost in innocent human lives, nuking Tehran
seems like a sure way to alienate our allies, make more enemies, invite
terrorist reprisals, and maybe start a war. I don't think Americans
would be safer as a result.
That's a brief sketch of my line of thinking. For more, see the
following articles:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb106/hb106-47.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-306es.html
--
Russell Hanneken
rhan...@pobox.com
Tim Starr
<Pine.LNX.4.10.100050...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>:
>Some thing called Houman Shadab wrote:
>
>>For example, I personally know that the people of Iran hate
>>the government but they are not willing to go thru another revolution
>>in order to establish a free society, especially given that they don't
>>really know what a free society is.
>
>:) :) :)
>
>>Now given that I've actually seen the man recently at a Harry
>>Binswanger talk, I would probably venture that his ideological bullying
>>is an overcompensation for his physical weakness and inward hatred of
>>life and happiness, and evidenced in his classically nerd-like demeanor
>>and behavior.
>
>can tell the difference by noticing that they have more facial
>hair than me.
Ethnic slurs, eh? Is there anything that's beneath Mr. Bimbo?
Tim Starr
<Pine.LNX.4.10.100050...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>:
>
>>I wonder if Speicher is really as psychotic as he's trying to convince us
>>he is, or if he just enjoys talking big while imagining himself in charge
>>of the military. I wonder if he would actually undertake terrorist
>>activities, in accordance with his 'principles' -- like blowing up
>>government buildings containing innocent people, in order to combat evil
>>government programs. Let's hope his hypocrisy prevents him from doing so.
>
>Hypocrisy? Now that's a laugh!
>
>Here we have Michael "Why I Am Not An Objectivist" Huemer (aka Owl), unable
Murdering millions of people for the actions of their rulers isn't "just."
>...by a proper government...
Since when is the US "a proper government"? Since when have the American
people (not the US military or embassy staff, which are the US government,
not the American people) been the victim of Iranian terrorism?
Mr. Bimbo's advocating mass murder of millions of people because of the
actions of their government, by an extortionate welfare state, on the false
grounds that the American people have allegedly been the victims of Iranian
terrorism, & calls it "just action against terrorism by a proper government."
Thus has Objectivism degenerated. Mr. Bimbo's obviously come under the
influence of too many neocons whose primary loyalty is to Israel, not the US.
Russell Hanneken
was posted by mistake.
Tim Starr
cq1.aol.com>:
>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> on Fri, May 5, 2000 09:43 EDT
> in <Pine.LNX.4.20.00050...@hypermall.com>
>
>>On 5 May 2000, Jim Klein wrote:
>>
>>> In article <8et65p$b7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> Tym Parsons <tym_p...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> what Speicher advocates here is straight-up
>>> >> mass-murder, and any bright junior high-schooler could sort that out.
>>> >
>>> >Wrong again.
>>>
>>> How is it wrong? Is it not "mass," not "murder," or perhaps don't words
>>> mean things?
>>
>>It IS mass murder, but the REAL murderer is the DICTATOR of the country
>>who initiated force on his own citizens and not the people who oppose him.
>
>I think that a lot of people are getting a healthy wakeup call here about
>Objectivism, including those who think they more or less understand the
>philosophy that they are objecting to (such as the poster you were
>answering). Their reaction to this topic proves that they're still enmeshed
>in altruism, utilitarianism, intrincism, and subjectivism.
On the contrary, it's you genocide-apologists who're enmeshed in those bad
isms.
>Altruism...
You advocate the sacrifice of US military resources for the defense of non-US
territory such as Israel.
>Utilitarianism...
You evaluate the efficacy of those sacrificed US military resources in terms
of the number of "US" lives allegedly saved.
>Intrincism...
You consider American lives intrinsically more valuable than those of
Iranians, & advocate the sacrifice of Iranians to Americans, forgetting the
part of Galt's Oath about not asking other men to sacrifice their lives to
you.
>Subjectivism...
You hold one set of principles for yourselves, another for your opponents,
implying that truth depends on the subject.
Peter Kinane
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100050...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
>
> Ask? How about DEMAND! And demand under threat of destruction.
> We have put ourselves under the mercy of foreign nations because
> of the altruists who have run our country. We apologize to the
> world for our wealth and power. We let a group of savages have
> power over the strongest and most productive and most moral
> country on Earth because of the very reason which motivates the
> morons on this group -- the stupid, imbecillic, feelings of
> people who have no understanding of right and wrong, and no real
> grasp of the moral principles which would enable them to
> distinguish between the two.
>
>
> Yes, many doubt that. Just listen to the pathetic voices raised
> here in opposition to a strong moral stand in defense of liberty.
>
>
> I appreciate your concern and the stand that you take, but there
> is nothing complex about this issue. It is a straightforward
> application of Objectivist principles and, just as I have been
> saying for so long about the anti-Objectivists on this group, it
> has separated them from the real Objectivists and revealed the
> nature of what they really are.
>
>
> No. Not the same. I know what you mean, but don't even leave any
> squiggle room for not differentiating between our action -- the
> morally justified response to terrorist murderers -- with the
> savage actions of a savage people who place more value on death
> than on life.
Does it ever occur to you that they may feel quite negatively about
Americans; isn't there a slogan about "Satanic Empire" or some such?
Seems to me that the 'Speicherian' mindset, and indeed Objectivism, and so
many other ideologies too, past and present, have crucial common criteria
with that of the Iranians who voted for a theocratic government (some years
ago). They are all seriously Categoricalist. In which case they may be very
inclined to do what Categoricalists have done so often in the past, wage
total war.
In my essay, "Effectuationism", I say of the primal effectuation of
Categoricalism: "(Indeed, it might well be conducive to subjugating others.
If so, then in an age of press-button world annihilation, with the buttons
becoming more widespread, its survival / advancement value may be in
decline)".
Seems that the world of modern technology cannot afford ideologies
axiomatically based on primal accounts of nature - such as the primal
sensory system, etc. It / They may regress the world to a state of primal
sensation / consciousness.
Perhaps that would be Objectivist and Theocratic, etc., "good".
Tim Starr
<Pine.LNX.4.10.100050...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>:
[snip]
>>Wht you'd actually be doing is burining up a whole ot of people
>>innocent of terrorism.
>
>The country itself is the base for exporting terrorism throughout
>the world, including the United States.
What Iranian-sponsored terrorism has there ever been in the USA?
>I feel assured that one act such as I suggest will end terrorism wherever it
>is.
The bombing of Libya didn't end Islamic terrorism in the world, why should
the bombing of Iran be any different?
sam...@my-deja.com
Tim Starr
<drr5hsga1bcg9ta21...@4ax.com>:
[snip]
>1) Does anyone doubt that Iran is both a sponsor of and active supporter of
>terrorism against American citizens?
I do. Iran's main contribution to terrorism in the world has been to support
Hamas, which operates against Israel, not against the USA. What terrorism
has Iran ever sponsored against the USA?
The only Islamic act of terrorism in the US that I'm aware of is the World
Trade Center bombing, which was clearly in reprisal for US intervention in
the Middle East. Since the Middle East isn't US territory, the US had no
proper reason for military intervention there in the first place, so there
never would've been any World Trade Center bombing if the US hadn't exceeded
its proper territory. The other acts of Islamic terrorism against the US
have been against US military personnel & embassies, not US territory itself,
& have also been in reprisal for US intervention in the Middle East.
Mr. Bimbo Speicher & his ilk keep speaking of Islamic terrorism as if it were
targeted against the USA, even though it's primarily targeted against Israel.
They equate Israel & the USA in their minds, even though they two are very
distinct geographically, politically, religiously, ethnically, etc. Israel
isn't the 51st state of the USA, no matter how much they think it is. The
interests of Israel aren't the same as those of the USA.
James E. Prescott
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100050...@photon.compbio.ca
ltech.edu...
> James Prescott -- Objectivist?
>
> This is too funny. Even fiction writers can't make this stuff
up.
I do not understand what you mean, Stephen.
That I regard myself as an Objectivist is rather well known
here.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Stephen Speicher
>
> You asked if there are better ways to deal with terrorism than
> nuking cities. Yes, I think so.
>
> The most important thing is for the US to stop making so many
> enemies.
And here we have it, folks. The MOST IMPORTANT thing is for the
US to STOP MAKING SO MANY ENEMIES!!!!
Yep, its all our fault. Savage beasts with mush for brains hate
us because we are the most moral and productive country on Earth,
and this lunatic wants US to stop making enemies.
What has made terrorism possible is the wishy-washy stance we
have taken towards these animals, placating the 'concerns' from
the rest of the world. And the solution suggested is to placate
them some more. Unbelievable!
Yes, it is true that we have stuck our noses where we didn't
belong, but not because we didn't have the moral right to do so,
but because in many instances it was not in our self interest.
However, to blame the victim -- the United States -- for the
savagery of the perpetrators, is the most grievous affront to
righteousness imaginable.
>
> Aside from the horrific cost in innocent human lives, nuking
> Tehran seems like a sure way to alienate our allies, make more
> enemies, invite terrorist reprisals, and maybe start a war. I
> don't think Americans would be safer as a result.
>
Bullies remain bullies until they can no longer get away with it.
Just the threat of such an act would end terrorism all over the
globe, if they thought we had the moral certitude to do it.
Americans _would_ be safer, as would be the people in those
countries which now export terrorism.
James E. Prescott
news:8F2B9FED6yo...@140.174.185.125...
> The only Islamic act of terrorism in the US that
> I'm aware of is the World Trade Center bombing,
> which was clearly in reprisal for US intervention in
> the Middle East. Since the Middle East isn't US
> territory, the US had no proper reason for military
> intervention there in the first place, so there never
> would've been any World Trade Center bombing if the
> US hadn't exceeded its proper territory.
I an earlier post I expressed my disagreement with Mr. and Mrs.
Speicher. Bombing innocent civilians without a declaration of
war, and without a purpose to eliminate the perpetrators of
terror and oppression, is in no way an appropriate response to
terrorism. It is mindless terrorism itself, and it is immoral,
and it is a crime.
However, I wouldn't want anyone to draw from that the impression
that I, as an Objectivist myself, am soft on terrorism. The
United States has every right to strike out against the
perpetrators of terror or against aggressive dictators anywhere
in the world, in any nation's territory. The laws of a free
nation and cause of justice know no borders. What we may not do,
and surely will not do, is to answer terrorism with terrorism.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
John Alway
Tim Starr wrote in message <8F2B9AF69yo...@140.174.185.125>...
>>pape...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8eu851$fb1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> [...]
>>>Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
>>>support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
>> I think we've had discussions here on this matter before .... but...
>> I agree with Stephen as well.
>Then you're a hypocrite, & all your whining about Waco was false.
Sorry, I don't see the connection. Waco was a very isolated
situation, where the government over reacted dramatically. It was a police
action against alleged outlaws. However, if the people in the Waco
compound were firing guns at innocents, or engaged in terrorist activities
from within, a command center so to speak, then leveling them would have
been justified. But, you are comparing apples and oranges, and if you don't
see that, then I'm not going to spend a million hours trying to explain it
to you.
>
>> The most recent act of terrorism by those nations was the murder of
>>hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Saudia Arabia.
>"Those nations"? You don't even know which one was responsible? I presume
>you're talking about the bombing in Dahrain, right? If you don't have
clear
>& convincing public proof of the guilt of a regime, destroying even the
>guilty regime won't do you much good because it will alienate others &
>motivate them to take revenge on you on behalf of the regime you attacked.
Destroying your mortal enemies is proper. If somehow Iran is not
responsible for terrorism against the U.S., then that's a separate issue
altogether. The point is, *if* they are, then the deserve to be plastered.
I'm not interested in sacrificing my life for zealots who desire to take it.
They are the ones who created the tinderbox, and so they are responsible.
As to your claim that it won't work, different issue, but I think it would
work and work well. To eliminate the brains behind the organizing and
financing of terrorism is entirely justified.
Again, since I said I'd agree with the moral right of anyone to do the
same to me should America become that kind of nation, I'm not a hypocrite on
this.
The terrorists are responsible. Blame them.
...John
Phil Oliver
> And for the record, I just want to note that this is another nothing-
> but-an-insult-post, lacking any substantive dicussion.
Like your lame-assed insult against Stephen Speicher, utterly
lacking in substance, which itself was so incompetently rendered
as to not even be identifying the CORRECT PERSON? You're
a flaming idiot, Shadab. Yes, that is an insult, but at least a
correct one and one which properly identifies the entity it is
directed at.
I will note one thing about the whole issue. If it were not for
decades of altruist sloppy sentiment against harming "innocents",
the possible necessity of mass destruction of an entire city
would have been totally averted. The FIRST TIME any terrorist
incident is linked to a particular country, their government should
be targeted for destruction. I don't *necessarily* think a weapon
of mass destruction is the best solution, if other weapons can
get the job done, but if they can't, well, just remember next time
that it isn't smart to go putting bombs in American planes.
Incidentally, since so many of the anti-Objectivists want to
focus on numbers -- how many lives were lost, implicitly, when
one of Merck pharmaceutical company's top researchers was
murdered in the Lockerbie plane bombing? How many discoveries
will never be made? How many thousands, hundreds of thousands,
millions will die because this man's life was snuffed out by
barbarians from Libya? To take one example. (This is not,
directly, the rationale for carrying out a military retaliation,
nuclear or not, but it does relate, by showing exactly what sort
of values are at stake when barbarians are given free run of
the planet.)
How many millions will die one day when an Iraq, an Iran, a
Libya, an Afghanistan (etc. ad nauseam) finally deliver a biological
or nuclear weapon themselves, to American soil, because hand
wringing cowards such as Clinton failed to nip the problem in the
bud in the first place?
Phil Oliver
sam...@my-deja.com
I'm an occasional lurker on this news group.
We ought, in principle, take action equivalent to bombing Tehran in the
scenario Stephen drew.
Stephen's scenario is stark, stripped of inessentials, and answers the
question: Is it or is it not right for a nation that essentially exists
to protect the liberty and property of its citizens to use military
force to compel regimes to cease to aggress against it and its allies.
Now, I suspect that ensuing arguments will fall into one of the
following two categories (they already have):
1. The U.S. as it exists today does not essentially exist to protect
the liberty and property of its citizens its moral currency isn't
backed by real value. -- Who are we to take such action?
2. The specific scenario Stephen drew would result in the deaths of
innocents. --How can we take action that harms innocents?
I suspect these arguments will be long, involved, passionate and --
essentially irrelevant.
Stephen's position is essentially correct, and moral. That it also
would have the desired effect is a consequence of its being moral.
Elsewhere in this thread Dean Sandin has so far best identified why
this is the case.
I'll add, in my own dance with irrelevance, that I intensely dislike
Stephen's m.o. of name calling and condescension. I abhor his style.
Ayn Rand once said Dominique Francon reminded her of herself in a bad
mood. If I knew Stephen personally, I'd bet he'd play a similar role
for me.
Dan Lind
Billy Beck
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>The only way to deal with bullies of force is to apply force to
>the bullies.
...as well as anyone standing in the blast zone, whether they're
responsible for terrorism or not.
You people are despicable *punks*, lacking nerve or vision. You
know *shit* about what you're saying here, and there is not one
"terrorist" worth his salt in the whole world who would not laugh loud
and long and *invite* your nuke strike. That's because he knows
something you don't: the propaganda value of martyrdom to the cause of
terrorism against America. You're talking about striking a match to
drain the gas tank.
You have no *idea* who the terrorists are, or where they are.
Pop quiz: where is bin Laden today? How many comprise his
organization?
Guess what: if you know the answers to these kinds of questions,
then the murder of innocents in a nuclear blast is uncessary to your
stated goal. If you *don't* know the answers, then the whole exercise
is futile, at best, and you-know-what at worst (which it is, anyway,
even if you hit the people you're aiming at, because of the rampant
destruction of innocent lives in the process).
<bah> I've got work to do, and I can't spend more time on this
right now. I'll be back to deal with Fred's nonsense on Monday.
My article at - http://www.zolatimes.com/v2.27/disney.html
...might make clear some of the dimensions of this matter of
terrorism until I return.
Make no mistake however: this is a big deal. There are
Clintooniac weezils who I've tagged years ago now with rubbish nowhere
near this ghastly. They're famous for it now, it's never going to
stop.
*You* people are going the same route: as long as I'm alive with
online time and until you think twice, you're going down in history as
advocates of mass-murder.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Tim Starr
>
>Tim Starr wrote in message <8F2B9AF69yo...@140.174.185.125>...
>>jal...@icsi.net (John Alway) wrote in
><_IDQ4.540$l41....@news.intnet.net>:
>
>>>pape...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8eu851$fb1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>>Since we are putting people on "public record" with regard to their
>>>>support for Stephen's comment, I'd like to add my name to the list.
>
>>> I think we've had discussions here on this matter before .... but...
>
>>> I agree with Stephen as well.
>
>>Then you're a hypocrite, & all your whining about Waco was false.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the connection. Waco was a very isolated
>situation, where the government over reacted dramatically.
You don't think nuking 10 million people because of a few terrorist incidents
in which a few hundred people died would be an over-reaction?
You don't think nuking Teheran would be an "isolated situation"? So, you
advocate a general policy of nuking the capital city of every country which
ever sponsored any terrorism?
Where does Washington, D.C., come on this list?
>Destroying your mortal enemies is proper. If somehow Iran is not
>responsible for terrorism against the U.S., then that's a separate issue
>altogether.
No, it most certainly is not a "separate issue". What terrorism against the
US has Iran ever sponsored? None, as far as I know. Against Israel, yes,
but not the US. It's up to Israel to fight its own battles against terrorism.
Mr. Bimbo Speicher is taking it for granted that Iran has sponsored anti-US
terrorism, & is saying that it would be just to mass-murder 10 million people
in retaliation for this alleged anti-US terrorism. Even if Iran had done
so, that response still wouldn't be justified, because it wouldn't be
necessary to get Iran to stop sponsoring terrorism. Iran gets the funds for
sponsoring terrorism from oil revenues. Destroy the Iranian oil pumps &
refineries, & Iran won't be able to afford to fund terrorism any more.
>As to your claim that it won't work, different issue...
Not at all, they're all just aspects of the same thing.
>To eliminate the brains behind the organizing and financing of terrorism is
>entirely justified.
That's what you'd say, until the first Mujaheddin with a backpack nuke is
sent from another Islamic country to blow up New York City in reprisal for
the nuking of Teheran.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Does it ever occur to you that they may feel quite negatively about
> Americans; isn't there a slogan about "Satanic Empire" or some such?
>
Who the hell gives a damn what a bunch of savages think!
>
> In my essay, "Effectuationism", I say of the primal effectuation of
> Categoricalism:...
I'm fed up with your "Effectuationism" crap.
Go effectuate yourself!
Houman Shadab
Phil Oliver <ph...@objectivism.net> wrote:
> "Houman Shadab" <hsh...@my-deja.com> wrote
> > And for the record, I just want to note that this is another
nothing-
> > but-an-insult-post, lacking any substantive dicussion.
>
> Like your lame-assed insult against Stephen Speicher, utterly
> lacking in substance, which itself was so incompetently rendered
> as to not even be identifying the CORRECT PERSON? You're
> a flaming idiot, Shadab. Yes, that is an insult, but at least a
> correct one and one which properly identifies the entity it is
> directed at.
First, I admit I was wrong about my identification of S. Speicher,
and I retract my inferences about him based on what I thought were his
looks. But that mistake aside, my inferences about his bad character
are from observing his posts, such as his ethnic slur about Iranian
women being hairy. My insult is not actually lacking in substance but
rather full of verification posted all over hpo. Thus, I am not a
flaming idiot, since even rational intelligent people can make mistakes.
As for you, you seem to possess many of the same malevolent
qualities that he does, judging from your posts. I just don't
understand what motivates people to post such spirited comments about
others. If I'm really a "flaming idiot" why even bother? How is your
self-interest served by constantly pointing out such facts? I'll tell
you this, it only flames the people you attack, and doesn't do anything
constructive for them to change their ways or opinions.
Now these questions also apply equally to non-ARI partisans who just
flame people on this group, and maybe even more so. Don't you have
better things to do?
I do.
--
________________________________
Houman Shadab
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~shadab/
________________________________