In praise of civility.

[gauchecritic]

the advocates of the left in such things as abortion, gay mariage and rights, feminism, environmentalism and global warming, are iron clad in their positions and not open to discussion, they have 'seen the light' and are iron clad and immovable in their positions. Ridicule and overwhelming evidence doesn't even slow them down.

Take a vote or a poll here, someone. I estimate that nine out of ten favor abortion, gay marriage and believe global warming is the result of the actions of man. Nine out of ten...take that to the bank.

One can always debate reasonably when logic and rationality in concert with a recognition of reality as an absolute to form a foundation upon which to build a discussion. Without those ingredients it becomes just another subjective argument with 'opinions' reigning supreme.

amicus...

Interestingly you list the subjects of debate that you, by your own words, are rigidly against.
4 of those 6 subjects are open only to subjective discussion.
Your feelings are closely linked (in the audience's mind) with religious zealousness
You claim (through logic and science) that religion is not something you adhere to. (organised religion IIRC rather than personal deism)
The other two subjects, whilst susceptible to scientific scrutiny, are unprovable on both sides.
Yet your every thread (broadly speaking) and every post takes a bullish stance in each discussion. Your shockjock tactics, your insistence on logic, supportive evidence, reliance on historical positions and playing much more than any other debaters here on audience approbation or repugnance are unfit for civil discussion for the simple reason that ignoring a post on a thread bears no resemblance whatsoever to hanging up a phone and denying further broadcast comment.

However much 'backup', however many sources, however much logic you use to support your stance, in the end because of the subjective nature of your favoured arguements, yours as much as anyone's is still opinion.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Interestingly you list the subjects of debate that you, by your own words, are rigidly against.
4 of those 6 subjects are open only to subjective discussion.

Are you referring to these four: "abortion, gay mariage and rights, feminism?"

Ami marches to his own drummer, but I should point out that on the first three, one would probably discover a general concensus among Objectivists that abortion is not murder and that gay people are are like anyone else, to be judged on how well they exhibit the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, justice, pride (and benevolence), all lf which have very specific definitions for Objectivists.

"Feminism" is not defined in that list; it should go without saying that, being in the liberal tradition, probably all Objectivists support "equity feminism." "Gender feminism" imports a lot of philosophical baggage that becomes very problematic for O'ists, including Marxist overtones, relativism and more.

"Environmentalism and global warming" were the other items on Ami's list. The former is not defined. All Objectivists would agree that imposing externalities in the form of dumping your crap on someone else's lawn without permission and compensation is basically a form of stealing, and is contrary to the virtue of honesty. The principle applies more broadly that that illustration, but I think you get the idea.

The last item, "Global Warming," opens a huge can of worms bigger than this thread's subject, so I'll just say two things. First, the word "consensus" used to decribe a supposedly "scientific" position is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? I mean, a hypothesis is either true, or not true. At one time there was consensus that a whole crapload of angels could dance on a pinhead (if disagreement about the exact number) - so what? Second, if the goal were to vastly increase government power at the expense of individual liberty in both the economic and personal sphere, one could hardly devise a better "threat." Given that the loudest advocates of a global warming "consensus" just happen to be people whose are very friendly to the expansion of the state, most Objectivists are highly skeptical and suspicious, to put it mildly.

 

[kendo1]

I stand by my statement above, Rox.

I do not believe in an ultimate Truth, as ami seems to.
I still like grey.

Ami seems to have a fixation with Truth, which was why I reckoned rectitude was an apt word.
It also seems amusing to me.

Apologies, ami, no offence intended. It seemed like a good idea at the time to lighten the discussion and get my point across.

I do respect ami's pont of view, I just don't share it.

As for Rand, I have only recently read about objectivism (small 'o'). I can see the attraction to it, but my thoughts sway towards it being a 'cult' (shiver), much the same way I think about Scientology.

Maybe I'm wrong, but when people talk about followers of Rand, or total adherence to Rand's philosophical views, I cringe.

And then, of course, there is LaVeyan Satanism...


Have a nice day

Ken

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I stand by my statement above, Rox.

I do not believe in an ultimate Truth, as ami seems to.
I still like grey.

Ami seems to have a fixation with Truth, which was why I reckoned rectitude was an apt word.
It also seems amusing to me.

Apologies, ami, no offence intended. It seemed like a good idea at the time to lighten the discussion and get my point across.

I do respect ami's pont of view, I just don't share it.

As for Rand, I have only recently read about objectivism (small 'o'). I can see the attraction to it, but my thoughts sway towards it being a 'cult' (shiver), much the same way I think about Scientology.

Maybe I'm wrong, but when people talk about followers of Rand, or total adherence to Rand's philosophical views, I cringe.

And then, of course, there is LaVeyan Satanism...


Have a nice day

Ken

LaVeyan Satanism, eh? Hmm, I may have to reconsider my positions . . .

Objectivism's worst enemies are its founder and most of its proponents. Personally, I find it much more appetizing and less cult-like if one adds a healthy dollop of Adam Smith and stirs. Rand's views on Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics are convincing to me. Her views on interactions between individuals are laughable and in my view destructive to what she wanted to accomplish.

My point about your previous jab at Ami was that if the ideas of O'ism were presented in a polite, thoughtful, non-beligerant manner, I would be shocked if someone like yourself responded in anthing other than the same vein and without insult, whehter or not you agree with those ideas. Ditto for Sarah.

 

[kendo1]

Oh, no!

I agree with Rox!

edited to add (because you did)

I was not insulting, it was merely levity.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oh, no!

I agree with Rox!

edited to add (because you did)

I was not insulting, it was merely levity.

As I refer to a lot of what goes on in GB, "rough fun."


("Talking out their ass" a bit over-rough for my taste, but that's me, and as I said at the outset, using a "shock jock" style of address is asking for it.)

 

[kendo1]

As I refer to a lot of what goes on in GB, "rough fun."


("Talking out their ass" a bit over-rough for my taste, but that's me, and as I said at the outset, using a "shock jock" style of address is asking for it.)

And I did send a PM to ami to say that I hope he was not offended and took it in the spirit it was intended.

I try to be civil.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And I did send a PM to ami to say that I hope he was not offended and took it in the spirit it was intended.

I try to be civil.

I know you do, and I'm probably over-sensitive. I'm sure he's accustomed to much worse. (Welcomes it? Arguably, invites it.)

 

[Pure]

note to roxanne

gauche said,

Originally Posted by gauchecritic

//Interestingly you [Ami] list the subjects of debate that you, by your own words, are rigidly against.
4 of those 6 subjects are open only to subjective discussion. //


Roxanne Are you referring to these four: "abortion, gay mariage and rights, feminism?"

Ami marches to his own drummer, but I should point out that on the first three, one would probably discover a general concensus among Objectivists that abortion is not murder and that gay people are are like anyone else, to be judged on how well they exhibit the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, justice, pride (and benevolence), all lf which have very specific definitions for Objectivists.

I think you miss gauche's point, as I read him. He did not say that most Objectivists are on the "wrong" side of those (standard, small 'l' liberal) positions. He said the issues were subject only to subjective or personal standards.

Most objectivists, unlike ami, have no problem with abortion, within the usual time limits, BUT they think it [pro choice] is a rational, objectively true view, and they'll *wonder* about anyone who disagrees, and maybe expel them.

Gauche's further point, as i read him is,

//Yet your [ami's] every thread (broadly speaking) and every post takes a bullish stance in each discussion. Your shockjock tactics, your insistence on logic, supportive evidence, reliance on historical positions and playing much more than any other debaters here on audience approbation or repugnance are unfit for civil discussion for the simple reason that ignoring a post on a thread bears no resemblance whatsoever to hanging up a phone and denying further broadcast comment.//

Roughly, Ami uses alll manner of nastiness and illogic in discussing such issues. I don't think gauche objectst to discussing 'subjective' issues, but to how Ami tries to 'muscle' his views about them.

Just to be fair to Ami, however, he says 'shock tactics' are necessary in this liberal den of entrenched orthodoxy. I don't object to 'shock tactics' per se; he may insult whom he likes. BUT i would say that Ami's tactics are often NOT effective in persuading, though they do sometimes generate good discussions [often among others in his threads]

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

gauche said,

Originally Posted by gauchecritic

//Interestingly you [Ami] list the subjects of debate that you, by your own words, are rigidly against.
4 of those 6 subjects are open only to subjective discussion. //


Roxanne Are you referring to these four: "abortion, gay mariage and rights, feminism?"

Ami marches to his own drummer, but I should point out that on the first three, one would probably discover a general concensus among Objectivists that abortion is not murder and that gay people are are like anyone else, to be judged on how well they exhibit the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, justice, pride (and benevolence), all lf which have very specific definitions for Objectivists.

I think you miss gauche's point, as I read him. He did not say that most Objectivists are on the "wrong" side of those (standard, small 'l' liberal) positions. He said the issues were subject only to subjective or personal standards.

Most objectivists, unlike ami, have no problem with abortion, within the usual time limits, BUT they think it [pro choice] is a rational, objectively true view, and they'll *wonder* about anyone who disagrees, and maybe expel them.

Gauche's further point, as i read him is,

//Yet your [ami's] every thread (broadly speaking) and every post takes a bullish stance in each discussion. Your shockjock tactics, your insistence on logic, supportive evidence, reliance on historical positions and playing much more than any other debaters here on audience approbation or repugnance are unfit for civil discussion for the simple reason that ignoring a post on a thread bears no resemblance whatsoever to hanging up a phone and denying further broadcast comment.//

Roughly, Ami uses alll manner of nastiness and illogic in discussing such issues. I don't think gauche objectst to discussing 'subjective' issues, but to how Ami tries to 'muscle' his views about them.

Just to be fair to Ami, however, he says 'shock tactics' are necessary in this liberal den of entrenched orthodoxy. I don't object to 'shock tactics' per se; he may insult whom he likes. BUT i would say that Ami's tactics are often NOT effective in persuading, though they do sometimes generate good discussions [often among others in his threads]

Yeah, I got Gauche's points, and agree that some of the issues raised are subjective. For that reason, different O'ists have different views on some of those things. Given that Ami is the only one here that explicitly presents Objectivist views on lots of things, and his own views on lots of things, which are not always the same but the distinction might be confusing at times, I just wanted to characterize the views that are probably more common among O'ists on those issues (within the contraints of not having definitions of them in the quoted post.)

 

[shereads]

Oh? I see someone cited in your sig: "In fond memory of Colleen Thomas."

She was a lot more than "flowers and sweet talk," but she was a lot closer to that that what we're talking about here. And she changed some minds.

In a particularly memorable moment of fondness, Amicus once told Colly she should be punched in the face. At the time, I thought he was attacking her. (She refused to see reason.) But since then, I've learned that Amicus disdains personal attacks. What may seem like a threat of physical violence is really just a different way of presenting his overwhelming evidence.

~ ~ ~

Is this the part where we all hold hands and sing, "We Are The World?"

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=shereads]In a particularly memorable moment of fondness, Amicus once told Colly she should be punched in the face. At the time, I thought he was attacking her. (She refused to see reason.) But since then, I've learned that Amicus disdains personal attacks. What may seem like a threat of physical violence is really just a different way of presenting his overwhelming evidence.

~ ~ ~

Is this the part where we all hold hands and sing, "We Are The World?"[/QUOTE]


~~~

Kumbaya or Wimowey maybe?

SHE...if I recall the incident with the late Colleen Thomas (and there is something that I recently learned that may change perceptions on that), the 'punch in the face' comment was in the context of two people in a person to person discussion and when it was as heated and argumentative as Colleen made it, I ventured that two males having such an argument would likely resort to violence, and I think I said, 'slap you up longside the head', it was an hypothetical situation and no threat was made, if my memory serves...been a while...


amicus...

 

[Kev H]

Yeah, I got Gauche's points, and agree that some of the issues raised are subjective. For that reason, different O'ists have different views on some of those things...

This has a decidedly relativist smack to it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This has a decidedly relativist smack to it.

Bite your tongue, heathen!






(in honor of St. Pat's, "ye Sassenach haythen")