3
   

Jesus vs. John Galt

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:09 pm
You know Craven, i have always found it interesting that Poe is much more respected as an author in Europe than in America. All that about a prophet in his own homeland, etc., seems never to have applied to Poe, who is still little regarded here nearly two centuries after his career. When Charles Baudelaire "discovered" Poe and translated (extremely well, i might add) his works into French, Poe was so immediately successful that Histoires extraordinaires became a mainstay of Baudelaire's domestic economy for the rest of his life. What really floored me was that i read in Baudelaire stories by Poe which have not been published in America in more than a century. I had to literally dig through the card catalogues in the University of Illinois graudate library to find American editons which included many of the best stories translated by Baudelaire.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:18 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Setanta implied that my sig line meant that Ayn Rand and/or I credited John Galt with Edmund Burke's work. That was totally false so I said so.


Such an implication does not exist in what i wrote. It is an inference drawn from your personal resentments as opposed to what i've written. Specifically, i originally wrote: "I don't know if it has been pointed out yet, but the signature line which Bill is using seems to imply that John Galt is responsible for the quote: 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'" I wrote "seems." That not only doesn't mean i implied deception on your part, it is good evidence that i do not believe as much. It really is tedious replying to accusations on your part which apparently derive from poor reading skills.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 04:26 pm
I might add, to Asherman, that in The Fountainhead, Hollywood graphically displays its ability to do a book badly. Considering what a piece of crap the book is to begin with, how thoroughly improbable the characters and the plot structure--it is truly amazing that the film actually manages to produce a narrative even more unlikely and turgid than the original.

I watched the first hour of that movie in slack-jawed wonder . . . it was late at night, though, and it took me a hour to finally ask myself what the hell i was doing watching the movie in the first place.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 05:02 pm
I read the whole of Atlas Shrugged, in 1964. Being a kid, I temporarily liked it. Within a month I formed my present opinion that it and objectivism are not for me.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 05:39 pm
Setanta I am once again impressed by the broadness of your knowledge on yet another subject.

However, your statement about Burke;
"He states much more clearly and eloquently the ideas which Rand stole from him, and used without attribution" reads very much like an accusation and a blatant one at that.

Atlas shrugged was a work of fiction. I can't recall ever reading a work of fiction where the author credited his or her influences. Besides, if she were to name Burke than surely she should name dozens of other influences as well. Foremost according to many "opinions" would be Hegel. Now, I guess I jumped the gun if all you meant to say was it's your opinion "Rand stole from him, and used without attribution" but it didn't seem that way because that isn't what you said.

Setanta wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Setanta implied that my sig line meant that Ayn Rand and/or I credited John Galt with Edmund Burke's work. That was totally false so I said so.


Such an implication does not exist in what i wrote. It is an inference drawn from your personal resentments as opposed to what i've written. Specifically, i originally wrote: "I don't know if it has been pointed out yet, but the signature line which Bill is using seems to imply that John Galt is responsible for the quote: 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'" I wrote "seems." That not only doesn't mean i implied deception on your part, it is good evidence that i do not believe as much. It really is tedious replying to accusations on your part which apparently derive from poor reading skills.
Poor reading skills, eh? Why the constant insults? Here is your quote again; "Rand stole from him, and used without attribution".

Looks pretty clear to me that my inference was not drawn from my "personal resentments", but rather directly from what you had written. Hmm. Maybe my reading skills are up to par after all, and it's your resentments that are clouding the issues.

I really wish you would quit with the petty insults. They belittle us both.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 05:46 pm
In that case, it seems that i was put upon by your poor writing skills.

You wrote:
That may have been informative to some, but your accusatory tone was uncalled for. My sig line started out as Simply: Who is John Galt? Then, I added the Burke quote. Then when I added the bit about the Iraqi Woman, that dozens of people have thanked me for, there wasn't room for crediting Edmund Burke. Neither Ayn Rand nor her character John Galt ever uttered that phrase to my knowledge. When asked, I've credited Edmund Burke every time. Do you have any other evidence to back up your claim: "He states much more clearly and eloquently the ideas which Rand stole from him, and used without attribution"


Which reads to me that you are saying i had accused you of something, given that you follow the claim of my having been accusatory with a defense of your signature line. I didn't realize, and don't think i can reasonably have been expected to realize, that you identify so strongly with Miss Rand that you feel obliged to defend her from "accusation." I've already explained how i came to that conclusion . . .

I wrote:
He states much more clearly and eloquently the ideas which Rand stole from him, and used without attribution.

As you might imagine, i do not have a high opinion of Rand.


The one sentence ends one paragraph, and the succeeding sentence beings the next. Nice try, but taking my remark out of context does not warrant a claim that i was stating anything but my opinion, which is clear if one does read it in context.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 06:29 pm
Whatever Setanta. I'm very sorry that my reading and writing skills aren't to your satisfaction. If it makes you feel any better, I'm constantly striving to improve both. :wink:

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
instead of going to the Doctor.

Where did that come from???
Eh,... Plato's "noble lie"?

joefromchicago wrote:
Let's all take some deep, cleansing breaths before we proceed. There now, feel better? Good.
IN, OUT, In, Out, in, out... ahhhhh that is better. Thanks Joe.

joefromchicago wrote:
I mentioned the Platonic "noble lie" because I am convinced that a Randian society depends on everyone being rational (or, more specifically, being rationally self-interested). Yet I am also convinced that people, on the whole, do not act rationally. In order for a Randian society to function, then, there must be some way in which the people who do act like rationally self-interested Randians can convince the others to act the same way, whether they want to or not. Thus the "noble lie."
I guess I'm having trouble understanding you. Why do you think more people would oppose earning their keep, than giving away what they've earned?

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
When working in a crisis, efficiency is paramount. That begs a question: Considering your above average ability, which community would you prefer to live in? (Be honest :wink: )

Well, that doesn't beg any question (for a definition of "question begging," see here). As for my choice, I would much prefer to live in Jesus Junction rather than Galt Gulch.
LOL. As always, your lessons on proper debate technique are appreciated... (I didn't even know that was a fallacy... I thought it was just an expression Laughing ) but I only meant I was curious. Needless to say, I would prefer to live in Galt's Gulch and behave accordingly. I do 99% of my work for myself and give away a small percentage. Do you by any chance do public defense? And didn't I once hear you say you didn't know what pro-bono meant? Laughing Just teasing; I know it's not my business... it just didn't give me the impression of one trying to emulate Jesus's givitaway, givitaway, givitaway-now attitude. :wink:

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
In that conclusion, "Logical" wasn't being applied to the people in general… just the cream of the crop. For the people in general; a sense of fair play is all that's necessary. Opportunity is necessary for happiness; success is not. Hang out by a lottery machine and examine the smiles on the faces of the participants, and you'll see what I mean. Hope for something better is the most important thing. That's why our founding fathers guaranteed us the right to pursue happiness. In Galt's Gulch, that's all we do.

People may have a sense of fair play, but it typically extends only as far as it applies to the other guy. Most people have a highly subjective view of fair play as it applies to themselves. That's one reason why we don't allow people to "take the law into their own hands" -- we can't trust them to apply justice fairly in their own cases.
That's a great point. I suppose we will need professionals for that regardless of which model you choose.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Yes, perhaps we'd all do better by reading Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth."
I haven't read that. I gather I should?

Yes, you should. You can find it here.
Thanks Joe. I'll read that before bed.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 08:41 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I guess I'm having trouble understanding you. Why do you think more people would oppose earning their keep, than giving away what they've earned?

If that is the sole characteristic of a true Randian, then I can understand your confusion. But a Randian society, as I understand it, depends upon far more than simple selfishness (although, to be fair, it depends upon that to a great extent).

Instead, a Randian society depends upon people ascertaining and acting upon their best interests, which Rand would define as their self interests. If, for instance, it is in one's best interest to keep one's promises in general, then it would also be in one's best interests to keep one's promise in a specific instance, even if, in that particular instance, one would suffer a crushing economic loss by adhering to that promise.

Now, this is a fine theory, and it would be nice if everyone acted in that manner. But Rand, as far as I can tell, not only believed that this was the way people should act, but it was, in fact, the way people do act. And that, I contend, is not only logically unsupported, but it is empirically false.

Furthermore, I believe that a Randian society cannot work unless everyone acts as a rationally self-interested individual. I suppose Rand might say that those who are not rationally self-interested will lose out in the competition with those who are rationally self-interested, but, again, I see no logical or empirical reason for this to be true. The only way that I can see a society to function with only some of its citizens acting as rationally self-interested Randians would be if the irrational ones were somehow convinced to act in the proper manner, even if they couldn't be convinced to do so on purely rational grounds. That is where the Platonic "noble lie" comes in.

Note: I'm not saying that this kind of Platonic "noble lie" is implicit in Rand's philosophy. I imagine Rand would have rejected such an implication, but then she would have said that people wouldn't need to be led by a lie when they would naturally be led by their own reason. I am, however, saying that I cannot envision a human society (superhuman societies are another matter) operating on Randian principles without either some kind of mechanism in place to make the irrational majority act rationally or else some kind of radical change in fundamental human nature.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Needless to say, I would prefer to live in Galt's Gulch and behave accordingly. I do 99% of my work for myself and give away a small percentage. Do you by any chance do public defense? And didn't I once hear you say you didn't know what pro-bono meant? Laughing Just teasing; I know it's not my business... it just didn't give me the impression of one trying to emulate Jesus's givitaway, givitaway, givitaway-now attitude. :wink:

I doubt that a society built strictly around Jesus's teachings would work any better than one built strictly around Rand's. Jesus, however, had a much more realistic understanding of human nature. After all, he allowed for sin; Rand, on the other hand, left little room for irrationality.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's a great point. I suppose we will need professionals for that regardless of which model you choose.

If you ever agree with me again I will have to slap you hard and repeatedly.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks Joe. I'll read that before bed.

I encourage you to do so. I think you'll find it enlightening.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 09:19 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.


Bill, I have read the relevant portions as well as extensive studies of it and summaries of it's logic.

I'm going to simply call you on this, this is a fallacious appeal to authority.

It's just like LW claiming people who know of Moore's prevarication in 9/11 have to actually watch the whole film to have legitimate complaints.

It's like people claiming one must live in America to criticise it.

Bill, you do realize that without reading the book in its entirety one can be aware of flaws within the book? Do you cede that this is possible?

Quote:
Since I do respect your intellect; your continued insistence that one must be unsophisticated to enjoy Rand's work offends me.


I've never insisted that one must be unsofisticated to enjoy Rand, just that Rand is notorious for being more popular with the unsophisticated.

Quote:
It is an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you.


This is laughable Bill, I can show you many references to the prevalent notion that Rand is the dumb conservative's Bible and that the more sophisticated read the books Asherman touted.

Quote:
Note: I would consider that statement offensive, even if you did know what you were talking about.


Bill, quite frankly that is your problem. My statements were not offensive except to those with an irrational inability to stomach criticism of Rand.

Again, the Rand PJs Bill. ;-)

Quote:

I don't have a problem with people disliking the book. I do like it, and choose to defend it… as well as it's author, especially against scathing attacks that go beyond the author and paint her fans (me) as unsophisticated. Taking offensive statements offensively is not something I plan to get over. Get over that. :wink:


Well Bill, you simply revise what is said. I have made no comment on whether or not you are sophisticated. I have only referenced prevalent stereotypes about Rand being the unsophisticated conservative's Bible.

Again, this is just a popular stereotype, see the characterization here:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/fwdr1.html
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 09:21 pm
Setanta wrote:
You know Craven, i have always found it interesting that Poe is much more respected as an author in Europe than in America.


Poe had no luck here. First unrespected, then put on school curriculums and subsequently becomes cliché.

His genius will probably always be underrated.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 09:57 am
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I guess I'm having trouble understanding you. Why do you think more people would oppose earning their keep, than giving away what they've earned?

If that is the sole characteristic of a true Randian, then I can understand your confusion. But a Randian society, as I understand it, depends upon far more than simple selfishness (although, to be fair, it depends upon that to a great extent).

Instead, a Randian society depends upon people ascertaining and acting upon their best interests, which Rand would define as their self interests. If, for instance, it is in one's best interest to keep one's promises in general, then it would also be in one's best interests to keep one's promise in a specific instance, even if, in that particular instance, one would suffer a crushing economic loss by adhering to that promise.
Now, this is a fine theory, and it would be nice if everyone acted in that manner. But Rand, as far as I can tell, not only believed that this was the way people should act, but it was, in fact, the way people do act. And that, I contend, is not only logically unsupported, but it is empirically false.
Been there, done that... with no more explanation than "I'm from Wisconsin." I look down upon anyone who doesn't live up to their word, in this society, let alone a fictitious one. I further believe the average person can be taken at his or her word (not here in FL perhaps, but most places :wink: ). Is it possible your line of work increases your exposure to those who can't be trusted and has slanted your opinion accordingly?

joefromchicago wrote:
Furthermore, I believe that a Randian society cannot work unless everyone acts as a rationally self-interested individual. I suppose Rand might say that those who are not rationally self-interested will lose out in the competition with those who are rationally self-interested, but, again, I see no logical or empirical reason for this to be true. The only way that I can see a society to function with only some of its citizens acting as rationally self-interested Randians would be if the irrational ones were somehow convinced to act in the proper manner, even if they couldn't be convinced to do so on purely rational grounds. That is where the Platonic "noble lie" comes in.
This is where you lose me. I submit the USA currently provides an example of "only some of its citizens acting as rationally self-interested Randians", and quite successfully at that. This despite the anchor of wastefulness that is our government weighting them down. Idea

joefromchicago wrote:
Note: I'm not saying that this kind of Platonic "noble lie" is implicit in Rand's philosophy. I imagine Rand would have rejected such an implication, but then she would have said that people wouldn't need to be led by a lie when they would naturally be led by their own reason. I am, however, saying that I cannot envision a human society (superhuman societies are another matter) operating on Randian principles without either some kind of mechanism in place to make the irrational majority act rationally or else some kind of radical change in fundamental human nature.
If you are saying the society cannot exist without laws, Joe, I'm afraid I already agree with you. But those who simply refuse to accept the principles of "produce or perish" are covered without any noble lie. Absent unwarranted charity, this really isn't an option for the sane.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Needless to say, I would prefer to live in Galt's Gulch and behave accordingly. I do 99% of my work for myself and give away a small percentage. Do you by any chance do public defense? And didn't I once hear you say you didn't know what pro-bono meant? Laughing Just teasing; I know it's not my business... it just didn't give me the impression of one trying to emulate Jesus's givitaway, givitaway, givitaway-now attitude. :wink:

I doubt that a society built strictly around Jesus's teachings would work any better than one built strictly around Rand's. Jesus, however, had a much more realistic understanding of human nature. After all, he allowed for sin; Rand, on the other hand, left little room for irrationality.
IMHO, if you head toward the extremes at an equal pace Jesus' forgiveness for sin makes Jesus Juncture a haven for crime long before Galt's Gulch experiences the uprisings you predict. Efficiency breeds success. Inefficiency breeds chaos.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's a great point. I suppose we will need professionals for that regardless of which model you choose.

If you ever agree with me again I will have to slap you hard and repeatedly.
I didn't want to Joe, but it was irrefutable. :wink:

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks Joe. I'll read that before bed.

I encourage you to do so. I think you'll find it enlightening.
That was very interesting, thank you. I can't remember where, when or why but I'm sure I've read that before. Frankly, dude sounds like a 'Randian' that enjoys charity. His assessment of charity parallels my own... and the only place I really disagreed was: when he suggested what limits a wealthy person should put upon their display of wealth. It contradicted his earlier (excellent) points that the common man enjoys today that which the wealthy man couldn't afford two generations ago. "What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of life."

It also removed all doubt that the so called "death tax" should be reinstated. Thanks again for pointing that out... not to mention that fallacy page. I intend to learn each of those definitions in hopes that I may better present my opinions and so I am not so easily pushed around. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 10:44 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.


Bill, I have read the relevant portions as well as extensive studies of it and summaries of it's logic.

I'm going to simply call you on this, this is a fallacious appeal to authority.
Dude, no, it's not. If anything is a fallacious appeal to authority it would be you referencing other's opinions to support yours, when experts in the field disagree on this issue :wink: . Furthermore, it is a subjective matter of opinion, so no quantity of agreement would make your opinion the right opinion anyway. Reading a book is most certainly the best, most comprehensive way to familiarize yourself with it's contents. Claiming otherwise is silly.

Craven de Kere wrote:
It's just like LW claiming people who know of Moore's prevarication in 9/11 have to actually watch the whole film to have legitimate complaints.
Strawman: Summarizing facts is hardly on par with summarizing opinions and philosophy.
Strawman #2: having legitimate complaints is much easier than a thorough understanding of the whole.
(At least one, if not both of those must be right :wink: Btw, should that be defined as 2 peices of criterion that make up a Strawman or 2 Strawmen out of the same sentence?)

Craven de Kere wrote:
It's like people claiming one must live in America to criticise it.
Strawman: One could easily learn more about America while living abroad. One couldn't possibly get a better impression of what Atlas Shrugged contains by reading summaries than by reading Atlas Shrugged, itself. Especially one who claims to remember nearly everything he reads.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, you do realize that without reading the book in its entirety one can be aware of flaws within the book? Do you cede that this is possible?
Of course. I'm sure you can point out flaws in whatever portion you read, Craven. That doesn't encourage me to attach much value to your opinion on the whole. Sorry.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Since I do respect your intellect; your continued insistence that one must be unsophisticated to enjoy Rand's work offends me.
I've never insisted that one must be unsofisticated to enjoy Rand, just that Rand is notorious for being more popular with the unsophisticated.
You've been jamming the term in my face in a passive-aggressive manner since this thread. Will you now pretend it's coincidence you used the term "sophisticated" again after my having referenced it 3 times in one of my final posts on that thread? You and I know that's not true. After all, you remember nearly everything you read.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
It is an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you.


This is laughable Bill, I can show you many references to the prevalent notion that Rand is the dumb conservative's Bible and that the more sophisticated read the books Asherman touted.
You are being intellectually dishonest (correct use?) to pretend I was challenging your ability to show that someone else said it. That is not what I meant, and you know it. Specifically, I was referring to this offensive statement:
Craven de Kere wrote:
only popular among unsofisticated readers.
I believe that remains "an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you."

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Note: I would consider that statement offensive, even if you did know what you were talking about.


Bill, quite frankly that is your problem. My statements were not offensive except to those with an irrational inability to stomach criticism of Rand.
Not only were your statements offensive but they were intentionally offensive. Read the other thread with an open mind and maybe you'll see that. You seem to enjoy getting me riled on the subject and then pointing out that I am.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again, the Rand PJs Bill. ;-)
Laughing That's still funny. I gotta give you that. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:

I don't have a problem with people disliking the book. I do like it, and choose to defend it… as well as it's author, especially against scathing attacks that go beyond the author and paint her fans (me) as unsophisticated. Taking offensive statements offensively is not something I plan to get over. Get over that. :wink:


Well Bill, you simply revise what is said. I have made no comment on whether or not you are sophisticated. I have only referenced prevalent stereotypes about Rand being the unsophisticated conservative's Bible.


Craven de Kere wrote:
In fact it's famous for being lousiy and only popular among unsofisticated readers.


If I quote someone using the prevalent stereotype 'Jews are greedy'... although I could furnish plenty of opinions that agree, it would be no less offensive, than if I had simply said it myself. This type of thing is usually beneath you Craven.
Again Craven, that was no accident. You deliberately provoked me again. Deny it if you wish. This is a continuation of this thread.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again, this is just a popular stereotype, see the characterization here:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/fwdr1.html
How popular a stereotype is has nothing to do with whether or not it's offensive or provocative and makes a poor excuse.
Watch:
Lot's of people think Jews are greedy.

This argument, like yours, falls into the Logical Fallacy category of 'argumentum ad populum'. Yes? :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 12:05 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Been there, done that... with no more explanation than "I'm from Wisconsin." I look down upon anyone who doesn't live up to their word, in this society, let alone a fictitious one. I further believe the average person can be taken at his or her word (not here in FL perhaps, but most places :wink: ). Is it possible your line of work increases your exposure to those who can't be trusted and has slanted your opinion accordingly?

One of the problems with using an example in an argument is the risk that someone will mistakenly assume that the example is the substance of the argument. My example regarding the person keeping his promises wasn't about promise-keeping, per se, it was about human nature in general.

Furthermore, your personal experience with honest promise-keepers in no way supports the Randian assumption that people act in a rationally self-interested manner. After all, the people you've encountered may have been acting irrationally at the time.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
This is where you lose me. I submit the USA currently provides an example of "only some of its citizens acting as rationally self-interested Randians", and quite successfully at that. This despite the anchor of wastefulness that is our government weighting them down. Idea

Well, if you are saying that only some people act in a rationally self-interested manner, then you agree with me. And if you're saying that American society currently works, despite the fact that only some of its members act in a true Randian fashion, then I would agree with you. But the fact that only some members of US society are rationally self-interested says nothing about a Randian society where only some members are rationally self-interested. Unless, of course, you contend that US society is Randian.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If you are saying the society cannot exist without laws, Joe, I'm afraid I already agree with you. But those who simply refuse to accept the principles of "produce or perish" are covered without any noble lie. Absent unwarranted charity, this really isn't an option for the sane.

Why not?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
IMHO, if you head toward the extremes at an equal pace Jesus' forgiveness for sin makes Jesus Juncture a haven for crime long before Galt's Gulch experiences the uprisings you predict. Efficiency breeds success. Inefficiency breeds chaos.

I would venture to guess that both societies would break down at roughly the same point: about twelve minutes after the experiment started.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks again for pointing that out... not to mention that fallacy page. I intend to learn each of those definitions in hopes that I may better present my opinions and so I am not so easily pushed around. Twisted Evil

Well, then I guess we have only a limited time remaining in which to push you around. Speaking for myself, I intend to make the most of this opportunity while it lasts.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 01:06 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dude, no, it's not. If anything is a fallacious appeal to authority it would be you referencing other's opinions to support yours, when experts in the field disagree on this issue :wink: .


Huh? I have used no experts to support anything about Rand. My only claim has been that Rand is famous for being popular with the unsophisticated.

Quote:
Furthermore, it is a subjective matter of opinion, so no quantity of agreement would make your opinion the right opinion anyway.


No kidding, which is why I wish you'd feekin' get over it already.

Quote:
Reading a book is most certainly the best, most comprehensive way to familiarize yourself with it's contents. Claiming otherwise is silly.


I did not claim otherwise. I did, however, note to you that one can easily be aware of a book's deficiencies without having read it in its entirety.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's just like LW claiming people who know of Moore's prevarication in 9/11 have to actually watch the whole film to have legitimate complaints.
Strawman: Summarizing facts is hardly on par with summarizing opinions and philosophy.


Bill this is a habit of yours that makes discussion with you unattractive. You simply start spewing out names of fallacies you have heard.

No, this is not a straw man. The comparison I made is very relevant.

See, both yourself with Rand and LW with Moore have an objection to criticism about them. And both of you dismiss criticism on the basis of this same appeal to authority.

What makes it so clearly a ploy is that you would find the criticism objectionable regardless.

Quote:
Strawman #2: having legitimate complaints is much easier than a thorough understanding of the whole.
(At least one, if not both of those must be right :wink: Btw, should that be defined as 2 peices of criterion that make up a Strawman or 2 Strawmen out of the same sentence?)


No Bill, it should qualify as you name-dropping fallacies without much of an understanding of them. As it they were powerful put downs to memorize instead of logical nuances to employ in ratiocination.

Again, it was not a straw man. You are, indeed, dismissing criticisms of Rand that in no way require a complete reading of the books to be valid.

For example, Asherman quit because he found it unbearable for whatever reasons and you claim he needed to stick it out to the end.

Newsflash Bil: GET OVER IT. Some people do not idolize Rand. Some people (a lot in fact) think it's a poorly written book. Some people think it's a poorly written book that is popular among a largely unsophisticated crowd.

And though their opinions may be objectionable to you, get over it. I have never seen a better advertisement against Rand than your obsession.


Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's like people claiming one must live in America to criticise it.
Strawman: One could easily learn more about America while living abroad. One couldn't possibly get a better impression of what Atlas Shrugged contains by reading summaries than by reading Atlas Shrugged, itself. Especially one who claims to remember nearly everything he reads.


Bill, again, not a straw man. LOL Please look it up, you are starting to drop the term in situations where I don't think you yourself would even agree that it is a straw man.

Here you are asserting that I am wrong, not that I craeted an easier-to-knock-down argument.

Now you, on the other hand have done precisely such a revision here.

I never claimed that summaries offer a better understanding than reading the book.

I did, however, assert that one need not read the book in its entirety to be aware of the flaws therein.

This is something you will not refute because it's true, although inconvenient to your defense of Rand against all whom you would have think as you do about her.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, you do realize that without reading the book in its entirety one can be aware of flaws within the book? Do you cede that this is possible?
Of course. I'm sure you can point out flaws in whatever portion you read, Craven. That doesn't encourage me to attach much value to your opinion on the whole. Sorry.


Bill, quite frankly I wish you would simply ignore my opinion on Rand. Your obsession with this issue is a pain in my ass.

I wish I could opine on Rand without you addressing me with your obsessive defences.

So to make this clear: I am not in any way trying to "encourage [you] to attach much value to [my] opinion on the whole".

Quite frankly I wish you would ignore it altogether because the Rand PJ brigade is old and boring.

Get it? The whole "get over the fact that I think Rand is daft" thing?

I have no desire or interest in convincing you, I do not even think I posses such ability in the face of such an unwavering love.

I simply opine and less charitably to Rand, and will start ignoring you on this in the future.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Since I do respect your intellect; your continued insistence that one must be unsophisticated to enjoy Rand's work offends me.
I've never insisted that one must be unsofisticated to enjoy Rand, just that Rand is notorious for being more popular with the unsophisticated.
You've been jamming the term in my face in a passive-aggressive manner since this thread.


Not "jamming" anything Bill. Laughing

Again, the whole "get over it" thing. I think Rand is unsophisticated and a poor writer, I think she poorly articulates the very philisophies (e.g. capitalism) that some think she defends so well.

And I do not "jam" this to you. Again, hell I wish I could be rid of your defenses of her and wish when I address Rand you would ignore it.

Quote:
Will you now pretend it's coincidence you used the term "sophisticated" again after my having referenced it 3 times in one of my final posts on that thread? You and I know that's not true. After all, you remember nearly everything you read.


Of course it's not a coincidence. I use it repeatedly because I continue to thinl Rand is unsophisticated and agree with the popular stereotype that her fans are in large part as well.

This is not a special dedication to you Bill, and you're starting to seem like you think you own the Rand fan club and maybe even are part Rand yourself, talking personal insult at any denigration of Rand.

Let's test: Rand is a poopy head.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
It is an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you.


This is laughable Bill, I can show you many references to the prevalent notion that Rand is the dumb conservative's Bible and that the more sophisticated read the books Asherman touted.
You are being intellectually dishonest (correct use?) to pretend I was challenging your ability to show that someone else said it. That is not what I meant, and you know it.


The use of the term "intellectually dishones" would be correct BTW if you had any idea what you are talking about.

My only claim was that there is a prevalent notion that Rand's fans are largely unsophisticated.

You are probably saying that the conclusions you draw from that are un-proveable and you are, of course, bristling at the criticism of Rand as per usual.

Either way I stand by the observation, and if your inordinate sensitivite about Rand makes you take issue so be it.

I will simply start to ignore it, just like I would ignore any ideologue when the strength of their conviction begins to become irritating.

Quote:
Specifically, I was referring to this offensive statement:
Craven de Kere wrote:
only popular among unsofisticated readers.
I believe that remains "an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you."


It's only offensive in that it has a typo and an inappropriate qualifier. Of course, some are not unsophisticated.

Either way, if you decide to take personal issue with it, so feekin' be it.

I reserve the right to think Rand is daft and popular with the largely unsophisticated, and again will begin to ignore your anger about my opinion.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Note: I would consider that statement offensive, even if you did know what you were talking about.


Bill, quite frankly that is your problem. My statements were not offensive except to those with an irrational inability to stomach criticism of Rand.
Not only were your statements offensive but they were intentionally offensive.


Whatever Bill. Laughing

Again, quit reading my opinions on Rand. I don't think it's good for your general well-being.

Plus, it would make my life less complicated.

Quote:
Read the other thread with an open mind and maybe you'll see that. You seem to enjoy getting me riled on the subject and then pointing out that I am.


This is too funny. No Bill, I do not enjoy it, I think you make a nuisance out of yourself whenever Rand comes up and you will note that I tell you that I don't wish to discuss it with you often before you even address me.

This is because this is a predictable and tedious pattern.

Again to make it clear: On the subject of Rand, I wish we were better strangers. I do not wish to rile you up, and quite frankly wish the opposite and lament that you getting riled up seems inevitable in any discussion on Rand.

Quote:
If I quote someone using the prevalent stereotype 'Jews are greedy'... although I could furnish plenty of opinions that agree, it would be no less offensive, than if I had simply said it myself. This type of thing is usually beneath you Craven.


This is sheer idiocy Bill, and should serve as a wakeup call to you on just how idiotic you let your Rand issues take you.

Comparing the "offense" of an opinion on Rand to the offense of racism that helped kill millions of Jews indicates a lacking sense of proportion.

Quote:
Again Craven, that was no accident. You deliberately provoked me again. Deny it if you wish.


Rolling Eyes You have a particularly irritating persecution complex Bill, and if it weren't so irritating it would be funny.

Again to clarify: I think these exchanges with you are a pain, and I frequently tell you that I do not wish to speak to you about Rand before you start. This is because I predict such boring exchanges each time Rand comes up.

And again, Bill. YOU may think negative opinions about the Rand crowd are all about you, others may just think this is indicative of an obsession gone to far and that they wish to avoid.

Me, I'm in the latter category, and that's why I tell you that I don't want to get into it with you even before you address me.

Quote:
This is a continuation of this thread.


For you Bill, for you. And there are a lot of threads you never let go (e.g. some dumb drug thread with Joe).

For others, it may be seen differently.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Again, this is just a popular stereotype, see the characterization here:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/fwdr1.html
How popular a stereotype is has nothing to do with whether or not it's offensive or provocative and makes a poor excuse.


I agree, I think it's lacking offensive nature (to those not obsessed with Rand) is a better criteria.

Quote:
Watch:
Lot's of people think Jews are greedy.


Rolling Eyes Again comparing an opinion of Rand's followers to anti-semitism Bill. This kind of thing only highlights the depth of this obsession that I so wish would not become my yoke to carry.

Quote:
This argument, like yours, falls into the Logical Fallacy category of 'argumentum ad populum'. Yes? :wink:


Again Bill, you drop names without understanding them.

If I were to say that Rand is famously X and therefore you should Y, then my argument for Y would be an argumentum ad populum.

I have not done so.

Compare these two:

1) Coke is a popular beverage.

2) Coke is a popular beverage, and you should drink it too.

Number one is a simple observation, number two is an appeal to popularity.

Whether it is, or is not a fallacious appeal is contingient on other factors still.

I took special care not to make my observations a support for any other arguments for a reason, just an added observation.

In conclusion Bill, you may think I'm all about getting your Rand fire lit. Do note that I think it's a veritable pain in the ass, and I will try my best to ignore you on this subject. I wish very much that you would ignore me on this subject as criticism of Rand does not sit well with you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 01:21 pm
Joe Near the Big Stinky Lake wrote:
Well, then I guess we have only a limited time remaining in which to push you around. Speaking for myself, I intend to make the most of this opportunity while it lasts.



You are, Joe, a very bad man.





heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


okbye
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 07:43 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Been there, done that... with no more explanation than "I'm from Wisconsin." I look down upon anyone who doesn't live up to their word, in this society, let alone a fictitious one. I further believe the average person can be taken at his or her word (not here in FL perhaps, but most places :wink: ). Is it possible your line of work increases your exposure to those who can't be trusted and has slanted your opinion accordingly?

One of the problems with using an example in an argument is the risk that someone will mistakenly assume that the example is the substance of the argument. My example regarding the person keeping his promises wasn't about promise-keeping, per se, it was about human nature in general.
I understood you just fine, Joe. We disagree about human nature.

joefromchicago wrote:
Furthermore, your personal experience with honest promise-keepers in no way supports the Randian assumption that people act in a rationally self-interested manner. After all, the people you've encountered may have been acting irrationally at the time.
Thank you Joe. I am a professional salesman at heart. :wink:

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This is where you lose me. I submit the USA currently provides an example of "only some of its citizens acting as rationally self-interested Randians", and quite successfully at that. This despite the anchor of wastefulness that is our government weighting them down. Idea

Well, if you are saying that only some people act in a rationally self-interested manner, then you agree with me. And if you're saying that American society currently works, despite the fact that only some of its members act in a true Randian fashion, then I would agree with you.
Boy that's a scary, ugly lot of agreement.
joefromchicago wrote:
But the fact that only some members of US society are rationally self-interested says nothing about a Randian society where only some members are rationally self-interested. Unless, of course, you contend that US society is Randian.
I would only contend that those that make up the financial backbone are largely self-interested Randian types... Well, that and the looters that were so accurately nick-named.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If you are saying the society cannot exist without laws, Joe, I'm afraid I already agree with you. But those who simply refuse to accept the principles of "produce or perish" are covered without any noble lie. Absent unwarranted charity, this really isn't an option for the sane.

Why not?
Well what's left Joe? Criminal behavior or perishing. I don't believe a significant portion would choose to turn criminal and I don't much care who chooses to perish. I truly believe the vast majority would choose to produce.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks again for pointing that out... not to mention that fallacy page. I intend to learn each of those definitions in hopes that I may better present my opinions and so I am not so easily pushed around. Twisted Evil

Well, then I guess we have only a limited time remaining in which to push you around. Speaking for myself, I intend to make the most of this opportunity while it lasts.
Might last longer than you think. I used a couple of them, and even offered proof as recommended in the definitions, but then I was accused of not understanding them. Shocked I'll have to take a close look, later. :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 09:14 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I understood you just fine, Joe. We disagree about human nature.

That's ok. I disagree with a lot of people about human nature.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Boy that's a scary, ugly lot of agreement.

Yes. Now let us never speak of it again.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I would only contend that those that make up the financial backbone are largely self-interested Randian types... Well, that and the looters that were so accurately nick-named.

Self-interested Randian types can operate successfully in US society because there is a regime of laws that is based upon the assumption that people, in general, don't act like self-interested Randian types. In a Randian society, however, we should expect that the laws would no longer reflect that assumption.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Well what's left Joe? Criminal behavior or perishing. I don't believe a significant portion would choose to turn criminal and I don't much care who chooses to perish. I truly believe the vast majority would choose to produce.

Or murder all the productive types in a bloody revolution.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Might last longer than you think. I used a couple of them, and even offered proof as recommended in the definitions, but then I was accused of not understanding them. Shocked I'll have to take a close look, later. :wink:

Not all such accusations are well-founded. Some, in fact, might be logical errors in themselves.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 02:05 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dude, no, it's not. If anything is a fallacious appeal to authority it would be you referencing other's opinions to support yours, when experts in the field disagree on this issue :wink: .


Huh? I have used no experts to support anything about Rand. My only claim has been that Rand is famous for being popular with the unsophisticated.
BS- easily spotted BS by looking at the original quote.
Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, I have read the relevant portions as well as extensive studies of it and summaries of it's logic.
Since your opinon comes in part from "summaries", apparently you consider the authors of said summaries experts... or else they'd be quite useless... which is precisely my point. Laughing The quoted, italicized portion above is quoted directly from the rules of the fallacy so don't pretend I'm just repeating words, okay?

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Furthermore, it is a subjective matter of opinion, so no quantity of agreement would make your opinion the right opinion anyway.


No kidding, which is why I wish you'd feekin' get over it already.
Dude. Your last Ad Hominem-Laden post to me on the subject was over 2,000 words... all the while claiming you don't want to argue. Laughing You addressed me by name first, both on this thread and the last. I repeat: if you don't wish to argue; don't! But, don't freak out when I respond when you do.

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Reading a book is most certainly the best, most comprehensive way to familiarize yourself with it's contents. Claiming otherwise is silly.

I did not claim otherwise. I did, however, note to you that one can easily be aware of a book's deficiencies without having read it in its entirety.
Since we agree that reading the book is best in this situation, why do you find it so offensive that I consider the opinions of those who haven't less valuable? Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's just like LW claiming people who know of Moore's prevarication in 9/11 have to actually watch the whole film to have legitimate complaints.
Strawman: Summarizing facts is hardly on par with summarizing opinions and philosophy.


Bill this is a habit of yours that makes discussion with you unattractive. You simply start spewing out names of fallacies you have heard.
Interesting. I on the other hand get tired of that claim because I believe I try pretty hard to understand what I read, have looked up "strawman" repeatedly and in fact referrenced the definition before making that post. I'll explain it in more detail in a minute in hopes you won't bob-n-move again. For starters, I referenced this definition of Strawman:
Quote:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

My point was that F-911 is supposedly a summary of facts. Faulty Facts of course, are much easier to refute then faulty philosophy, hence it meets the criteria to be considered a Strawman.

Craven de Kere wrote:
No, this is not a straw man. The comparison I made is very relevant.
The comparison is nonetheless weaker than my best argument. Click here and see what it says about proof and you will see I had done that too.

(Btw, I'm trying to learn the "rules of engagement". It would be easier if you didn't mislead me by pretending I'm doing it wrong. :wink: )

Craven de Kere wrote:
See, both yourself with Rand and LW with Moore have an objection to criticism about them. And both of you dismiss criticism on the basis of this same appeal to authority.

What makes it so clearly a ploy is that you would find the criticism objectionable regardless.
Did you lose your place here Craven? This portion of the exchange can be traced to:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.
There is nothing unreasonable about my placing little value on your opinion of something you haven't read. Get over it. :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Strawman #2: having legitimate complaints is much easier than a thorough understanding of the whole.
(At least one, if not both of those must be right :wink: Btw, should that be defined as 2 pieces of criterion that make up a Strawman or 2 Strawmen out of the same sentence?)


No Bill, it should qualify as you name-dropping fallacies without much of an understanding of them. As it they were powerful put downs to memorize instead of logical nuances to employ in ratiocination.
Actually Craven; I had verified the accuracy of both claims before I even hit the submit button. Again, if you trace back you will see this stems from:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.
And, again; you will notice that my Strawman #2 claim above specifically provides the "proof" suggested by the fallacy's definition page here.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again, it was not a straw man. You are, indeed, dismissing criticisms of Rand that in no way require a complete reading of the books to be valid.
No, leading up to those Strawmen, I was dismissing your summary of something you haven't read in it's entirety. This will continue to be reasonable no matter how much you object. :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
For example, Asherman quit because he found it unbearable for whatever reasons and you claim he needed to stick it out to the end.
I commented that it was a shame he didn't and corrected some accidental errors on his part. Were our roles reversed and Asherman told me I missed something in the last third of a book I had already suffered through 2/3s of; I might be tempted to finish it. I think Atlas Shrugged is the mother of all slow starters. Most people I speak to who've actually read it agree with that sentiment. Didn't your summaries tell you that? Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:
Newsflash Bil: GET OVER IT. Some people do not idolize Rand. Some people (a lot in fact) think it's a poorly written book.
Yes I know. In between your silly posts I've been having a rather interesting discussion with one of them. :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
And though their opinions may be objectionable to you, get over it. I have never seen a better advertisement against Rand than your obsession.
If I were half as bonkers about Rand as you like to pretend, Craven, I'd be crushed. Laughing You are the only one freaking out here.

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's like people claiming one must live in America to criticise it.
Strawman: One could easily learn more about America while living abroad. One couldn't possibly get a better impression of what Atlas Shrugged contains by reading summaries than by reading Atlas Shrugged, itself. Especially one who claims to remember nearly everything he reads.


Bill, again, not a straw man. LOL Please look it up, you are starting to drop the term in situations where I don't think you yourself would even agree that it is a straw man.

Here you are asserting that I am wrong, not that I craeted an easier-to-knock-down argument.
Which part of my explanation are you quibbling with? (I checked this one before submitting, too :wink: )Do you deny that one could easily learn more about this country while living abroad than someone else who lives in it? If not your statement...

Craven de Kere wrote:
It's like people claiming one must live in America to criticise it.
... is a Strawman as it relates to my original statement:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.
Your denial of the obvious is a wee bit annoying as I am trying to learn, and normally I consider you an expert.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Now you, on the other hand have done precisely such a revision here.

I never claimed that summaries offer a better understanding than reading the book.
I'll just call that a reasonable misunderstanding, on your part. I didn't accuse you of saying that. I asserted it myself as the second half of my "proof" of your Strawman as suggested by the definition of the fallacy found here. :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I did, however, assert that one need not read the book in its entirety to be aware of the flaws therein.
I conceded that you've probably found flaws in whatever portion you've read.

Craven de Kere wrote:
This is something you will not refute because it's true, ...
Laughing Sorry Craven... that's just my style. This would be a shorter conversation if it was yours as well. :wink:
(had to split that sentence because the second half is another point, sorry)

Craven de Kere wrote:
...although inconvenient to your defense of Rand against all whom you would have think as you do about her.
Boy, maybe I should have cut that one in three. Laughing Mostly, I'm defending myself, Craven, not Rand... But yes; I did find her work to be a very positive influence in my life and yes, I like to encourage others to read it too. Despite your best efforts, someone was convinced on that other thread after asking to be convinced to read it. Sorry I interfered with your interference. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, you do realize that without reading the book in its entirety one can be aware of flaws within the book? Do you cede that this is possible?
Of course. I'm sure you can point out flaws in whatever portion you read, Craven. That doesn't encourage me to attach much value to your opinion on the whole. Sorry.


Bill, quite frankly I wish you would simply ignore my opinion on Rand. Your obsession with this issue is a pain in my ass.
Writing 2,000 word Ad hominem laden posts in direct response to what I write probably isn't the best way to get me to ignore you. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
I wish I could opine on Rand without you addressing me with your obsessive defences.
Bummer. Actually though, in reality, you addressed me, by name, first, in both your opening post on this thread and on the other one. I repeat: if you don't wish to argue; don't. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
So to make this clear: I am not in any way trying to "encourage [you] to attach much value to [my] opinion on the whole".
Here, I would have thought I already made clear by now that I don't. :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quite frankly I wish you would ignore it altogether because the Rand PJ brigade is old and boring.
Laughing Still funny, but I think it's time to come up with something new.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Get it? The whole "get over the fact that I think Rand is daft" thing?
Eh, yup.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I have no desire or interest in convincing you, I do not even think I posses such ability in the face of such an unwavering love.
Laughing 2,000 plus words was a hell of try though, huh. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
I simply opine and less charitably to Rand, and will start ignoring you on this in the future.
Phew! I get tired of this too. But I resent your Ad Hominem laden, radio-repetition-style of attack, and I don't lay down for bullies. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Since I do respect your intellect; your continued insistence that one must be unsophisticated to enjoy Rand's work offends me.
I've never insisted that one must be unsofisticated to enjoy Rand, just that Rand is notorious for being more popular with the unsophisticated.
You've been jamming the term in my face in a passive-aggressive manner since this thread.


Not "jamming" anything Bill. Laughing
I stand corrected (that was funny again). Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again, the whole "get over it" thing. I think Rand is unsophisticated and a poor writer, I think she poorly articulates the very philisophies (e.g. capitalism) that some think she defends so well.
That's fine and good. A lot of people think that. It's when you over shoot and hit me that I take offense. Did you somehow not notice the civil discussions I've had with others who feel that way, on both threads, even while you attack me with your nonsense.

Craven de Kere wrote:
And I do not "jam" this to you. Again, hell I wish I could be rid of your defenses of her and wish when I address Rand you would ignore it.
Again, stop addressing me by name to begin your criticisms of her and her fans and you might have better luck. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Will you now pretend it's coincidence you used the term "sophisticated" again after my having referenced it 3 times in one of my final posts on that thread? You and I know that's not true. After all, you remember nearly everything you read.


Of course it's not a coincidence. I use it repeatedly because I continue to thinl Rand is unsophisticated and agree with the popular stereotype that her fans are in large part as well.
But somehow you can't figure out that might be provocative? Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:
This is not a special dedication to you Bill, and you're starting to seem like you think you own the Rand fan club and maybe even are part Rand yourself, talking personal insult at any denigration of Rand.
No, I take offense when the guy who probably possesses the most widely respected intellect on A2K specifically names me as a fan, and than goes on to describe said fans in insulting ways. Keep doing it, and I'll likely keep defending myself against it. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
It is an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you.


This is laughable Bill, I can show you many references to the prevalent notion that Rand is the dumb conservative's Bible and that the more sophisticated read the books Asherman touted.
You are being intellectually dishonest (correct use?) to pretend I was challenging your ability to show that someone else said it. That is not what I meant, and you know it.


The use of the term "intellectually dishones" would be correct BTW if you had any idea what you are talking about.
Pity this is one of the few places during this idiotic rant of yours that you actually admitted understanding what I was addressing, rather than choosing to be deliberately obtuse.

Craven de Kere wrote:
My only claim was that there is a prevalent notion that Rand's fans are largely unsophisticated.
The exact words I took offense to are:
    [quote="Craven de Kere"] [b]only popular among unsofisticated readers[/b] [/quote]
I've made this pretty clear by quoting it repeatedly. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
You are probably saying that the conclusions you draw from that are un-proveable and you are, of course, bristling at the criticism of Rand as per usual.
Utter nonsense... and you know better. I am stating that the repeatedly quoted assessment:only popular among unsofisticated readers is un-provable.
Your feigning that you don't know that; is where intellectually dishonest comes in.
Stop pretending, here is the source again:
    [quote="OCCOM BILL"]Since I do respect your intellect; your continued insistence that one must be unsophisticated to enjoy Rand's work offends me. It is an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you. [/quote]


Craven de Kere wrote:
Either way I stand by the observation, and if your inordinate sensitivite about Rand makes you take issue so be it.
Boy that Ad Hominem excuse for your behavior is getting really getting old.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I will simply start to ignore it, just like I would ignore any ideologue when the strength of their conviction begins to become irritating.
You keep promising that. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Specifically, I was referring to this offensive statement:
Craven de Kere wrote:
only popular among unsofisticated readers.
I believe that remains "an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you."


It's only offensive in that it has a typo and an inappropriate qualifier. Of course, some are not unsophisticated.
Generous of you. Was that so hard? I feel like a great weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
Either way, if you decide to take personal issue with it, so feekin' be it.
No, no. Your long overdue correction buried in the middle of this gargantuan Ad Hominem makes me feel fantastic! Cool Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
I reserve the right to think Rand is daft and popular with the largely unsophisticated, and again will begin to ignore your anger about my opinion.
Whatever dude. Please do.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Note: I would consider that statement offensive, even if you did know what you were talking about.


Bill, quite frankly that is your problem. My statements were not offensive except to those with an irrational inability to stomach criticism of Rand.
Not only were your statements offensive but they were intentionally offensive.


Whatever Bill. Laughing

Again, quit reading my opinions on Rand. I don't think it's good for your general well-being.
I appreciate you concern, Craven, but I think I'll be okay. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
Plus, it would make my life less complicated.
Rolling Eyes Wow Would that be an argumentum ad misercordiam Razz Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Read the other thread with an open mind and maybe you'll see that. You seem to enjoy getting me riled on the subject and then pointing out that I am.


This is too funny. No Bill, I do not enjoy it, I think you make a nuisance out of yourself whenever Rand comes up and you will note that I tell you that I don't wish to discuss it with you often before you even address me.
Craven, please. Your first post here attacked me directly and by name.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again to make it clear: On the subject of Rand, I wish we were better strangers.
Seeing is believing. Do you know how silly it is to say that so many times in such a long post to me? Think about it. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
I do not wish to rile you up, and quite frankly wish the opposite and lament that you getting riled up seems inevitable in any discussion on Rand.
Take off the blinders and examine the discussion that's been going on here. Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
If I quote someone using the prevalent stereotype 'Jews are greedy'... although I could furnish plenty of opinions that agree, it would be no less offensive, than if I had simply said it myself. This type of thing is usually beneath you Craven.


This is sheer idiocy Bill, and should serve as a wakeup call to you on just how idiotic you let your Rand issues take you.
Oh, stop it Craven. This is a transparent attempt to shift the attention from an obviously point. I used the offending stereo type as an example of bad behavior, no more. That is clear to anyone who reads it... as I'm sure your diversionary tactic is as well. I think I saw a fallacy that covers that, too, but I don't feel like looking for it right now.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Comparing the "offense" of an opinion on Rand to the offense of racism that helped kill millions of Jews indicates a lacking sense of proportion.
Rolling Eyes The only useful thing about your response there is you do seem to have an inkling that your stereotype was indeed offensive, though it's tough to tell under all that phony righteous indignation.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Again Craven, that was no accident. You deliberately provoked me again. Deny it if you wish.


Rolling Eyes You have a particularly irritating persecution complex Bill, and if it weren't so irritating it would be funny.
1,500 or so words into your scathing attack, that's a pretty tough sell, but I applaud your effort. Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again to clarify: I think these exchanges with you are a pain, and I frequently tell you that I do not wish to speak to you about Rand before you start. This is because I predict such boring exchanges each time Rand comes up.
Ehhhh, see above.

Craven de Kere wrote:
And again, Bill. YOU may think negative opinions about the Rand crowd are all about you, others may just think this is indicative of an obsession gone to far and that they wish to avoid.
Craven, that is so much rubbish. Re-read and you will find me agreeing with some of the criticism about Rand and that I even introduced some of it. As for what others may think; I have little control over that.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Me, I'm in the latter category, and that's why I tell you that I don't want to get into it with you even before you address me.
I'll remind you again... you attacked me on this thread... not the other way around.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
This is a continuation of this thread.


For you Bill, for you.
That's funny, considering that's the one where you brought up the idea of not wanting to argue with me before... bla, bla, bla that you keep repeating. Get your story straight. :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:
And there are a lot of threads you never let go (e.g. some dumb drug thread with Joe).
e.g. what? I don't recall ever referencing the drug thread with Joe. Do you Joe? If I did; that would have been quite some time ago. I do frequently tease him about his work on a death penalty thread, but that one was over before I joined. Or, are you referring to my remembering that I was supposed to start a thread about some legal issue that was off topic on another thread? (that's how this one started, btw). Or, and I'm guessing this is most likely; are you trying to fortify your BS contention that I'm paranoid with whatever BS you can think of? Laughing Pretty shameless.

Craven de Kere wrote:
For others, it may be seen differently.
Dude, your BS is so exposed already. You keep referencing that other thread yourself even while you continue to pretend. Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Again, this is just a popular stereotype, see the characterization here:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/fwdr1.html
How popular a stereotype is has nothing to do with whether or not it's offensive or provocative and makes a poor excuse.

Watch:
Lot's of people think Jews are greedy.


Rolling Eyes Again comparing an opinion of Rand's followers to anti-semitism Bill. This kind of thing only highlights the depth of this obsession that I so wish would not become my yoke to carry.
Another call to pity, Craven? Rolling Eyes (Just in case that really was insensitive of me; I hereby state for the record that I meant no offense to any Jewish people). Again, you straight duck the point in favor of this imagined slight. I was pointing out the wrongness of the stereotype and chose a worse one for that purpose. I was trying use one that was bad, yet easy to find evidence for in case you challenged me to do so. Yes, it is much worse, and only a fool would think I don't know that. Only a fool wouldn't see your transparent shifting of attention, as well. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
This argument, like yours, falls into the Logical Fallacy category of 'argumentum ad populum'. Yes? :wink:


Again Bill, you drop names without understanding them.
Okay, maybe I did. But not intentionally. I read the rules and thought claiming: Ayn Rand's work was 'only popular among unsophisticated readers', was true because you could quote many sources that said so, qualified.
Thanks for explaining, rather than insulting, for a change.


Craven de Kere wrote:
In conclusion Bill, you may think I'm all about getting your Rand fire lit. Do note that I think it's a veritable pain in the ass, and I will try my best to ignore you on this subject. I wish very much that you would ignore me on this subject as criticism of Rand does not sit well with you.
That's certainly true. I do tend to defend those I like. But nothing to the extend your characterization of my self-defense might lead one to believe. That was truly uncalled for, Craven. Rolling Eyes I'm tired. Good night.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 02:20 am
Bill, I have to admit that I haven't read that and don't intend to (the whole not wanting to get into this Rand silliness any more than I already am, plus it looks kinda long).

So let's just assume everything you said was true and that way I can try to escape the Rand madness. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 07:35 am
That's cool with me... Cool Party on Garth!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/08/2021 at 12:55:13