Hay should I be here?
Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 8 months ago to Ask the Gulch
I wanted to get a little input from the community here based on the pop up message I received today to remind me about the possibility of being banned based on attacking others, or posting anything that disagrees with Objectivism.
I do try to stay away from attacking any person. I attempt to find a common ground with those I deal with so I do not think this to be a problem for me. If I ever slip and let myself do so, I apologize and likely do not realize I did so. Please let me know so I can catch myself next time I either communicate poorly or let my thoughts get the better of me.
The real point of this post is this. I do not agree with everything in Objectivism. The vast majority yes, I have found truth in it, and it has helped me define things I have always felt true but could not put into words. This has me thinking about going back to college for a philosophy degree not just to learn more about philosophy to look at others besides objectivism to better understand the whole lot.
From my perspective objectivism included within it a religion as the forced religion of the philosophy. I do not share with those the accept the full package that religion, nor will I ever do so.
I joined the site to talk with and support others who value the power of a mind, reason, free agency, self rule and a desire to earn what they get in life. By very definition a person that values these things will not ask another to live for them. I have enjoyed many threads of conversation on this site. My preference is to continue to do so. I wonder though based on the pop up and site agreement if I should continue to participate.
The pop up has made me wonder: Is it the preference of this community that a person such as myself that combines a different religion (not Atheism) with Objectivism in there life not be part of this community?
I do try to stay away from attacking any person. I attempt to find a common ground with those I deal with so I do not think this to be a problem for me. If I ever slip and let myself do so, I apologize and likely do not realize I did so. Please let me know so I can catch myself next time I either communicate poorly or let my thoughts get the better of me.
The real point of this post is this. I do not agree with everything in Objectivism. The vast majority yes, I have found truth in it, and it has helped me define things I have always felt true but could not put into words. This has me thinking about going back to college for a philosophy degree not just to learn more about philosophy to look at others besides objectivism to better understand the whole lot.
From my perspective objectivism included within it a religion as the forced religion of the philosophy. I do not share with those the accept the full package that religion, nor will I ever do so.
I joined the site to talk with and support others who value the power of a mind, reason, free agency, self rule and a desire to earn what they get in life. By very definition a person that values these things will not ask another to live for them. I have enjoyed many threads of conversation on this site. My preference is to continue to do so. I wonder though based on the pop up and site agreement if I should continue to participate.
The pop up has made me wonder: Is it the preference of this community that a person such as myself that combines a different religion (not Atheism) with Objectivism in there life not be part of this community?
I too was surprised today with this pop up warning.
You and I have been conversing on these sites for some time and it would be a shame if you were to go dark. It has been my experience that you are a courteous and thoughtful contributor.
I, for one, do not have a take it all or leave litmus test. I only expect courtesy and respectful dialog. "We can disagree without being disagreeable." Gerald Ford
Respectfully,
O.A.
I find that attitude or statement with a few on the site and it really needs to be addressed when it comes up. Some attempt to justify their continued belief in a religion and Objectivism as comparable and justifiable by maintaining that Objectivist are atheist and call atheism a religion. An answer I've replied before may help you understand why Objectivist find that idea so objectionable:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The difficulty in this arises in your first sentence in which you frame your interest with the 'anti-religion aspect of Objectivism.' Objectivism is not anti-religion anymore than it's anti-anything, other than anti-reasoning and anti-rationality. Objectivism, at it's base is pro-life (not the PC mis-definition) and pro-human. Objectivism finds our ability to determine the reality within which we live, as that available from our five senses and our ability to reason in a rationally logical manner. And further, that emotional responses must be subjected to reasoned, rationally, and logical analysis compared against reality before acting on them. Objectivism also demands identity and definition, i.e. A=A. Religion has an identity and definition (the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods) which does not equal those of philosophy (the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.) The two are obviously separate.
An Objectivist, sensing reality within which he lives and experiences, does not sense or experience the superhuman or superstitional gods of religions, can find no evidence or proof of such beings, and therefor rationally and logically, reasons that no such thing exists. Objectivist also find a set of morals which finds that altruism, as expressed in so many religions, rather than being helpful to either side of altruism is actually harmful to life and the individual and does express an antipathy towards any altruistic act or justification for such. So any belief or reliance in a religion, an anti-human and anti-life act justified by that religion, or an argument that relies on a superstional or superhuman existence or interaction with such is antithetical with philosophy, particularly that of Objectivism.
I might suggest that rather than working backwards from Objectivist ideals and attempting to rationalize those with 37 years of religious programming, that you spend a little time looking at the basis of Objectivism, i.e. A=A, Existence=Existence."
------------------------------------------------------------------
The atheism of an Objectivist is in no way a religion or a counter-religion, and doesn't derive from or rely on any beliefs. Objectivists don't consider Ayn Rand as a prophet, but rather as a genius of rational thinking and brilliant in expressing in writing and speaking, the philosophy she discovered and developed. Objectivists also recognize that anyone that allows any belief to bias reasoning, logic, and rationality in any manner, regardless of how many aspects of Objectivism they find agreement with, are demonstrating their inability to fully grasp and apply completely rational and reasoned thought to ideas and issues in reality.* That to an Objectivist is an inescapable conclusion. If that can be understood, and that an Objectivist will in all probability point out where a belief is interfering with logical reasoning, there's no reason that a discussion can't take place and be enjoyable for all.
I typed up several paragraphs and then deleted them. My basis in my belief system is A=A and that Existence=Existence. These concepts working forward cause me draw the conclusion that a creator has to exist. You draw a different conclusion.
There is no way for you to prove yours or me to prove mine. If you are wrong we will talk about it later in our existence, if I am wrong it wont matter anyway.
We can agree to disagree about the nature of Atheism.
If you are believing very very important in your own estimation things without reasonable evidence then this is not at all good for your mind or quality of life.
We cannot "agree to disagree".
I was concerned with the rash of threads around religion that it may have triggered the pop up reminder.
I am unlike some people in our world that would like to force a business to provide a service that business owner does wish to provide to them. I see that a a disrespect of property rights, and do not wish to be doing that here.
When I am amongst people who consider themselves as Objectivists, I do not characterize myself in such a fashion because I have mine own set of values, and they only partially agree with what people state to be Objectivism (which definition in turn depends on who is making the statement). When I am with the general (liberal) population I will sometimes say that I am an Objectivist or a Randist, because it is a handy shorthand for them to 'see where I am coming from'.
I find much value in the comments of people who are marginal Objectivists, as I am. I too look forward to the 'binocular vision' provided by rational dissent.
Jan
It seemed to me that the tone of the site had shifted a bit to "If you not a pure Objectivist, this is not for you." and that perception was reinforced by the pop up.
I am a Christian, but I do not ever wish to come across as proselytizing (either her or elsewhere). I will state my own beliefs and find others interesting to hear as well, but if I ever come off as trying to convert someone understand that is not my intent. I greatly respect, even when I disagree with, a persons right to any religion of their choice.
Thanks again for your comments.
I certainly have no suspicion that this pop up was aimed at XenokRoy.
Jan
I have found most people here to be, well objective most of the time. Most are very good to talk to, here viewpoints from and every so often someone gives me something to think about. I love it when that happens. It is what I come here for.
If I stop being a thinking adult, notify and explain my offense to me.
If I don't or can't comply, ban me for a cooling off period. If I persist after the cooling off period, then ban me permanently.
If someone disagrees with Objectivism in some way, it should not be reason enough to be banned, imo, but the owner of the site has earned the right to decide. I am here with that understanding.
If people who disagree with Objectivism in some way are always banned then they will have little opportunity to learn, contribute, and possibly accept Objectivism.
The above is my opinion.
Jan
On the front of being respectful to others in our communication the pop up has merit.
For me the line is simple. Is the response you want to write emotional or rational. If its an emotional response take a second and turn to a rational one.
As for the president. I would want to say "You lousy rotten American hating ass, I hope you fall down a manhole cover that has been left open find yourself wounded from the fall with an alligator that lives in the Sewers there to chase you down and give you what you deserve" that however would be a purely emotional response, and while much of it would not be a bad thing, (depends on your perspective) stating it would do nothing beneficial. Much like have a smile and stating "thank you Mr President..." other than it may make you feel better.
However a more reasoned response would be something like "Do you know that when you first became president the average house hold income was 52k per household and today its 48k, 42k when adjusted for purchasing power due to inflation. How can you say you have been successful with the economy when the buying power per household is down nearly 25% or 10k?"
One has rational purpose, the other none. Both effectively say he is a lousy rotten...
I left the room, or forum after a couple times of being ignored. No sense talking to the wall. No need to recognize them further.
If they really come to take my property, that is a harder thing. How much tyranny does a man put up with before risking everything to get rid of it? To me the even bigger question is: What plan is in place to insure that risking everything will make things better?
Most often rebellion leads to something worse (think french revolution) and there must be a reason to believe that doing so will result in something better (think American revolution).
The Sam Adams are needed to start a revolution, but without the a Washington who can receive power and be willing to release it, or a Payne who can motivate through words Sam Adams becomes a vehicle for a Hitler or a Neapolitan to take charge. Without a Jefferson to fight for small government even when what he would want is to small against a Hamilton who was the big government man of that day we likely fail to revolutionize the US government again towards something that promotes the individual as both a person responsible for themselves, and to face consequences of actions they take for themselves.
If the pieces are in place and a reasonable potential for success exists, its then time to use force to counteract force to fix the issue. Its time to risk everything to get something none of us have ever seen, a free society. That wont be done in words, but in deeds and there is no proper or effective way to tell a person that wishes to take your freedoms or property by force to stop it in words which is the only weapon available in this place.
Probably more than you were looking for. :)
I have a small farming business on the side. My bother in-law wanted to help with it for a share of the Hay for his animals he had. I could use the help, and we agreed upon a percentage of work for a percentage of the crop.
On the first cutting of hay he started to load the broken bails (those that my crappy bailer did not tie correctly, have a different bailer now.) and load them in his truck. I stopped him on the way out of my field and asked him how many bails he thought were there?
He said about 14
I thought about 15 but 14 was acceptable.
I said ok, we can just take that out of your total. He acted put out and said these were just broken bails that we could not store. I responded then I can feed them to my cattle and we wont count it towards percentages then.
We then argued about things, I told him what he was attempting to do was theft he felt it was not, I broke off the arrangement for help and told him he could take those for payment on the work today. We did not talk for the next 3 years.
Theft is taking anything you have not earned and that the proper owner does not agree to give you.
If a thief is in my living room advocating we participate in some theft of some type. I would ask him or her to either recognize it as theft, explaining why I saw it as theft. If we cannot agree I will ask them to leave and likely no longer look for their company.
If they have actually stolen from me in my younger days they would have been lucky to walk out without a bruise or two, maybe even something broken. I have mellowed over time and have learned to hang onto the desk behind me with both hands until they leave the room. Reference intended.
When she starts talking about how the government must take care of the poor. I say on who's dime. She responds that the government has plenty of money... conversation goes along the lines of where does the government get its money to "what if some of the people do not want to have the government do it and/or fund it. Is that theft? She answers I do not see it that way. I then describe various scenarios that are the same thing that she will see as theft and then illustrate that the same basic principles are at work with a mugger under the cover of darkness in an ally with a club and a socialist under the cover of government in tax code with the IRS. Her response I do not see it that way.
The coversation continues until I get this response, nearly every time at some point.
"Roy there is no right or wrong, just differences of opinion" which really means, I can no longer come up with any real arguments so this is my I failed and you won statement to keep from seeing reality. At that point I move on, nothing you can really do about this person unless you wish to remove them from society.
Instead, I would use the "hide", "flag", or "ignore".
On my own posts, I use my "Two Strike Policy", which works great.
I don't know why others haven't adopted it.
noted on the "unless it was your forum."
But I wonder how a debate would play out between Alphonse and Gaston.
If someone seems ignorant of history or science, is it name-calling to tell them that they are in point of fact ignorant? Do we need a list of forbidden words?
They didn't seem all that bad to me, but I wasn't part of the melee. But sometimes the problem is that a written statement can come off more harshly than intended and things can get out of hand.
For the record, I had one of those pop up warnings as well, so I don't know what's up with that. Oh well...macht nichts.
Also it will come up for you again if you login/signin on a different device.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Wow, what an insult. :)
Maybe we should start a new trend, instead of calling someone a jackass, or worse, or even more worse... we could call them Pelosi?
Pelosi -Also Known as Miss Lube Job of 1953 or there abouts and the Wicked Witch of the Left Coast. But I kinda like Comrade Benita Pelosillyni. Hard to believe it's the same one in that Calendar Girl pose.
And to think I could have taken on Biden.
Waaaaahhhhhh!
Some start out saying this is the same country I grew up in .....the same one Dad and Grandma and Great Grandpa talk mentioned. Sure it's changed we now travel by freeways but it's still flat and by golly what's good enough for them is good enough for me. And vote for Hillary or Bush.
Or make much ado about next to nothing while the obvious escapes them. Until a group of people in Northern California yell "Show us we're from Eureka!"
Meanwhile the tribe of beetles has somehow found it's way aboard a freighter and bugged out. Arriving in Tsingtao. They start marching West.
Question is. Do they ever notice the stars have changed? All the way to the Atlantic?
We don't want to degenerate into this:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-liv...