Good Bye
Posted by TruthFreedom1 10 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
argumentum ad hominem: Passing judgement on a perception of character. I have never passed character judgement on a person on this site or at any time unless I have first been attacked in such a way. I did not come here to engage in this way. I have come to believe that you might not have an objective bone in your body. Leonard Peikoff says the Objectivist movement is "a closed system and not open to change." I think he was right. I am open to change which is why I came here. That was obviously a mistake. People who have closed minds to the opinions of other and who don't show respect for those opinions (agreed or not) are destined to wallow in a stagnant world, but hey who am I to pass judgement. Its to bad the moderators of this site don't do something about such things. And now I bid you adieu... Probably to a loud chorus of cheers... Phhht
It strikes me that some here are asking for censorship in the name of moderators.
It is a public forum and as such each of us has the option to join in a variety of ways:
Receiving: passively observing
Comfort Participation: here as long as it doesn't get uncomfortable - who needs that?
Constructive Participation: here to change things for the better which means conflict automatically.
TruthFreedom1 owed nothing. Nor do any of us.
This is not a tragedy or a success. It is a simply choice for his purposes and THAT I support. He chose. He did not sit in the middle and make excuses, delay, dawdle and wait. He chose.
However, three things are mentioned in addition to a simple "goodbye", and they are mentioned in relation to the "goodbye" as if they are causes.
1) Suggesting someone may not be Objectivist because they don't have an open mind to redefining Objectivism, a suggestion clearly indicated by bringing up Leonard Peikoff's and David Kelley's disagreement, is a pre-emptive assumption sans premises to support it.
The idea that Objectivism is a philosophy that can grow and change and transcend it's founder's idea of it is blatantly an attempt to create something other than Objectivism - which is perfectly acceptable - but don't call it Objectivism. We've seen that attempt many times, usurping a name or idea and changing it.
2) Respect: That's a buzz word with lots of explosive attached. When it means: "listen to what I say and don't argue" it may mean someone is in the wrong forum at Galt's Gulch. If it means: "Deal with the topic and argument, leaving out the personal insults to evade the argument" then it clearly is an appeal to use logic.
However, clearly the site doesn't pass the threshold of a set number of people who use logic and reasoning and avoid personal insults to satisfy TruthFreedom1 and those that do do not carry enough of a majority for him to remain.
That's a perfectly reasonable choice.
It's just odd since most of Rand's novels are about overwhelming odds and those whose Objectivist approach caused them to stand their ground.
It is also appropriate to respect the wishes of one's hosts (the moderators, in this case) and to that end, thank you for the forum - I do not know TruthFreedom1 well and will encourage people to look at the whole issue, not just one post by someone who left, to judge the "justice" of the situation.
That's where the freedom of competition comes in. TruthFreedom1 can always start their own forum accordingly.
Choice. No judgment required.
"However, clearly the site doesn't pass the threshold of a set number of people who use logic and reasoning..."
to Truth's satisfaction (as you said in the second half of the sentence)?
I only commented to Truth's lack of reasoning and logic on his posts. Many, many others were conspicuously not participating on his posts. There is very little moderation of posts. It's up to all participating to choose which posts are relevant and add to the discussion.
Others are looking for affirmation of their core beliefs and others still seek to disprove those core beliefs.
Coming to a forum of people who are Objectivist and then discovering that they truly are such and decrying them as closed minded and not open to change while you desire to be "open minded" is abject lunacy. WARNING!! ** Humor follows** - You know what they say about open minded people?? - "they become so open minded that their brains fall out". **End of humor**
It may surprise a few people that I have a couple friends who are gay and we have a great time visiting and talking about politics, science, history, religion, woodworking and art. All areas where we can agree or disagree and still be friends. What we do not discuss is my heterosexuality AND conversely, their homosexuality. We do not have to talk of it and still be friends. We both know that plumbing those depths would sever our bonds to each other - we each feel too deeply about our stands.
I will not deprive myself of their friendship by insisting that they change they views on this most personal of all human activities and they will not deprive themselves of my humble person by demanding that I change my beliefs about their sexual desires. We are, friends.
It seems that after a few days among us, you are playing the spoiled school yard cry baby and have decided that since you cannot change us and that you will not engage in the truly civilized manner that my friends and I have adopted, you are going to pick up your marbles and go home.
To that I can only say, see ya! Somebody lock the gate.
You mentioned you came here because you're open to change. Based on your parting comments I'm just wondering who you hoped to change.
Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
As for moderators, would you rather have an open, honest, uncensored discussion, or something more like how yahoo blindly censors words because someone might get offended and get their feelings hurt?
I would rather not have some arbitrator determine what is and is not acceptable, and allow the community of posters to express their concerns at someone for an unfair attack on another. If no one comes to your defense, then perhaps you are overly sensitive. Censorship is wrong, always.
It's better to say to the attacker, "their post doesn't help the conversation, and that perhaps they should elucidate their thoughts." If the goal is a free exchange of views then that's what we have to strive for. Demeaning someone wastes all of our time.
I would say it's more of a 'public shaming' for behavior then it is censorship, as opposed to having a moderator simply remove a post because someone didn't like it.
That does raise the next question, is Behavior modification (in this regard) different then censorship?
We're talking about civility.
As usual, I suggest expanded voting buttons explicitly including, for example, "I agree/disagree." Then add complimentary/derogatory choices... <grin>
>>>>>>>>> correction! My bad! I guess that after I noticed "added to the conversation" as the mouse-over for "thumbs up," I didn't even notice the popup for "thumbs-down."
I would, therefore, suggest that the thumbs-down popup be replaced with "Does not add to the conversation," or that an additional bunch of selections for "agree, disagree, spam" be ADDED. It just seems like, pardon the expression, "lousy logic" to imply that the converse of "adds to the discussion" is "this is spam."
Why don't YOU leave?
As much as khalling probably shouldn't have asked you to leave, your response back is exactly what this thread is discussing.
So, do I thumbs down you to signify spam, or do I thumbs up you for contributing to the conversation?
http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin/_linked-i...
(Yeah, I started collecting them for spammers and morons on some of the Linked In forums.) and some are rated R for language if that bothers you...
The links will mean nothing to you unless you're a browncoat... well, maybe not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2OsPGnrd...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxpLC0Reo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrCwoQr63...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soTd71bJ5...
I suggested to the SyFy channel that they resurrect it... probably not going to happen....
'It's often better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.'
It just needs some art work to measure up.
If it wouldn't be sent to me too often, I might add something like that, too...
:)
the antenna one is my favorite, but it's a close call-so many great ones
Unless you were at least armed with breath mints?
I usually use "Barking Dogs".
You are correct. Not many people are willing to try to lower the volume and restore civility to a conversation. I blame DC for that. Talk about a herd of cats :-)
>>"People who have closed minds to the opinions of other and who don't show respect for those opinions (agreed or not) are destined to wallow in a stagnant world, but hey who am I to pass judgement. Its to bad the moderators of this site don't do something about such things"<<
Respect is something to be earned, not demanded or assured by a moderator.
>>"a moderator could expose those people who can't stay on point and try to embarrass them as much as possible."<<
Doesn't sound like the free exchange of ideas and opinions to me.
>>"I too have found myself wondering about the moderators of this site. apparently there is no one."<<
Personally, I enjoy the site and the freedom the moderators allow as well as their input to the discussion.
>>"That comment needs to be dealt with"<<
Looks to me like the comment gets dealt with adequately by replies. This isn't grade school, I hope. Many times I even look at the deleted comments.
There are times that people get off track on the issue of the post that can be frustrating, but dealing with that frustration is good for the soul and valuable exercise of a rational mind.
In this case's reference we have indeed learned from repliers that there does exist some basis for the original upsetting comment. It might hurt (OOH OOH weoww) our sensibilities and it might not fit the issue being discussed, but it's an important reality for all of us to realize - what people in our own government are capable of.
The only dealing with comments we need to do is to try to determine facts, exaggerations, non-facts.
Some forums do have oppressive moderators, but most have them to keep the spam away. I cannot tell you how many times my forum has been bombarded by advertising for a cabinet company in England. We are an automotive forum in the US. My moderators deal with these threads and drop the ban hammer on the spam posters.
Moderators on my forum also make sure that civility is maintained. By that I mean that in the event someone directly threatens another member they take action and ban that person. I think any organized society or group would find it’s self in need of peace officers at some point.
People need to understand that when they are on an internet forum they are NOT on public property. They are standing in the living room, the creation, of the person that created that forum. I would not expect someone to walk into my living room, my creation, and just start trash talking. When something like that happens people get shown the door. Would you seriously expoect for someone to come into something you created just to talk trash?
great input. have you been around when the crap is flying and producers say this is shit? we can get all over the map down the street. basics. that's all I'm asking. I've been told to bite anatomy, called a racist, every vulgar thing you can think of has been commented to me. it would be nice to focus on why most come to the site and their discovery of Ayn Rand. t would be nice that the discourse was civil. It would be nice that those who want to produce in here are not chilled by malevolence, pushed away by socialist agenda. heck-they need only to turn on the tube or open the paper to get that
I fully agree with you.
Then there is the second concern. Posts that begin to dominate the board which are meant to drive an agenda not consistent with the purpose of the site. If it gets to the level of driving participants away -that's. Something we
should look at. We tolerate quite a bit,
And we wont always agree, but shouldn't we have some baseline for posting? Its the discussion right now
We all WANT it to be someone else's fault… but perhaps you deserved what you got?
I'm only saying that because it doesn't seem to be a common problem here. When something only affects a small number of people, it's reasonable to ask, "Did they bring it on themselves"? And all this happened without anyone else even noticing it? Maybe you've blown it out of proportion?
Doesn't seem to be much evidence here of a need for monitors - and how would you feel if the monitors decided you were the problem after all?
Welcome to the Gulch.
What color is the sky in your world?
How I "feel" would not be relevant in examining why moderators of a board would call me out.
Speak up folks. You want censorship and thought control? Or do you like things the way they are?
it messes the DVD up.
Are not moderators persons who exercise control over posts?
Advocating for moderators is advocating for control over the freedom of others to post comments of which she disapproves.
You really don't get that?
It's "what do you want?"
Philosophically speaking, you're a shadow, not a Vorlon...
This is your assumption.
Moreover, this is your assertion because you want it to be true.
Unless you are an admin, you have no clue what the amount or percentage of people asking for moderators are, or even what their reasons for asking are.
Since you're quoting me, I would hope that you would at least do so within context. It does seem to be a favorite ploy for some here to quote people out of context and thereby try to support their own arguments.
When I spoke of moderators as a good idea and perhaps even needed, it was in the context of keeping on point and move the debate forward. My understanding of these types of sites is to keep debates within the framework of the founders of the site. In this case it happens to be believers in Ayn Rands philosophy on economics, politics man and his freedoms and sometimes her personal atheism. frankly the atheism of the 40's and 50's are greatly different of today.
Without a doubt you have greatly misunderstood my beliefs and my desire to further any debate and sometimes it just ends in having to agree to disagree. In such an event it is not about who wins and who looses, but has been the most logical presentation of facts that are to the point.
My desire is to always further any discussion along, hopefully to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. It's not about win or loose, but about learning new ways to look at something, or the proverbial open mind that you so disdain as your "joke" clarifies. Maybe sometimes the mind needs to dump out some things that may not be accurate despite our beliefs. Try not being the smartest guy in the room, and try to be the guy that asks the smartest question.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Second... When I mentioned respect it was relating to just leaving the personal attacks out of a conversation thread. What good comes from that? It is no way to grow a conversation.
Second I am a complete newbie to Ayn Rand and the Objectivist way of traversing life. Many of you have commented in ways that have changed my mind about the Objectivist movement not being open to change. I have done some online research and your group has an uphill battle that is certain, but I respect your convictions and sincerely believe in the merit of what you are doing.
Third when I mention moderation it was never meant to infer any kind of censorship... However, civility is key in not only moving a conversation forward but also in learning about the way others (and you) think... Only when participants start throwing stones should and moderator step in and try to diffuse the situation... Not kick people off the site. I have seen some self moderation on this thread and that's great. I have also noticed that like me quite a few of you can be triggered into emotional responses and that can also be detrimental to a conversation. It is an Achilles Heel and I try very hard not to let it happen.
That is what happened between me and a couple of other members.... Sorry about that. I was never a Troll. I came here to learn what you are all about. and I thought posting about things which I have a deep interest in would be a great way to start. Emotion got in the way. I sincerely hope you will accept my apology for any discomfort I may have caused the group.
All the best.
The Real TruthFreedom1
Brian Smith
I too have found myself wondering about the moderators of this site. apparently there is no one.
Perhaps the people posting the original pice should appoint themselves as moderators in order to keep to the point raised originally. They wouldn't be able to block ayone, but perhaps appeal to the conscience of the "trolls" that occasionally appear. What am I saying, conscience and trolls in the same sentence is of course absurd. nevertheless, a moderator could expose those people who can't stay on point and try to embarrass them as much as possible.
As I've said before, if you are proud of your opinion, state your real name, even though we won't know if it is real.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
would you consider putting up a post laying out criteria you feel would be appropriate for moderation? how the site is moderated, by-laws perhaps...
my name is out there and I have put up with quite a bit. Usually, it doesn't bother me, but I wonder how many participants it does. Producers are already discussing this, but I think guests should weigh in. Thanks
Michael Stuart Kelly, on 14 Feb 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:
Kat and I own the forum.
I basically run it--sort of like a traffic cop. I try to make sure things are moving along and that nobody hogs the forum with excessive preaching, trolling, spam and so forth. No explicit porn, either..
There is no protection of Rand's honor or anything like that here. No adherence to a party line. For instance, we even have a few socialists who are interested in Rand who regularly post. (They're great people, too. They even put up with me. :smile: )
There is something that looks like an exception, but it's really not. I have a very soft spot for Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden. During the publication of Valliant's boneheaded book against them, a small group of true believers haunted everywhere on the Internet the Brandens were mentioned and flooded each place with snarky derogatory statements about them--reams and reams of convoluted, eye-glazing hair-splits to prove Rand was pure and the Brandens were contaminated. ("Moral hygiene" was even a popular phrase back then. But soapbox on a bubble is the image that comes to my mind. :smile: )
So I made a rule here that there was one place on the Internet--other than the Brandens' own sites--where that would not happen. It's OK to disagree with them, even criticize them if it's respectful. But no ham-handed character smears.
The reason I say this isn't an exception is that OL is not a vehicle for any ham-handed character smears of anyone. I just had to be extra-clear in this case because of the excessive enthusiasm of the zealots.
There are certain authors I believe should have a place to present their work before the targeted audience of OL, so I set up "Corners." Generally, these authors have moderating privileges within their respective Corners. Some are more tolerant of comments than others. Each decides according to his or her convenience.
Other than that, there is no hierarchy. People come and go as they please. My attitude is that what is good for each individual posting-wise is good for OL. So you won't see here the comical swan songs of people leaving and long threads of others begging them to stay that you can see elsewhere. It's either give and receive value, or the person is free to pursue a different audience and community elsewhere. Cliques and power games don't flourish well here.
We do have a group of regular posters and I love each one. But they are here by their own free choice. Just as I am, for that matter.
No peer pressure. No lockstep. People speak for themselves and no one speaks for "Objectivism" or Rand or anything resembling an organized ideological hierarchy. There are standards, of course. And there is flexibility.
Another point is that OL is not part of the "Objectivist movement," whatever the hell that is. It is not a place to preach, but instead, work through ideas. All of the regulars (and I believe a good portion of the lurkers) have come to Rand's ideas because of something in them that strongly resonated. However, each person brings a different history and a different context. Some people are faster and some are slower. Some are more abstract and some are more image and example oriented. Some are storytellers and others are science people. Some like to gossip and others... er... scratch that. EVERYONE likes to gossip. :smile:
Each person has something different to get out of the ideas, too. There is no law requiring that everyone go into the Rand sausage machine and come out a perfectly formed O-weiner at the other end.
I frame it like this. In most Internet places where Objevtivism is treated prominently, Objectivism and Rand are the end points. You go there to absorb the ideas (or bash them for the hostile sites)--to learn what is right and wrong according to authority figures--and interact with others who are doing the same.
Most of the discussions at these places have the subtext that Rand is right and her enemies are both wrong and evil. Or that Rand is wrong and her followers are pathetic deluded idiots, and the true authority is [FILL IN THE BLANK]. Two different flavors, but the same substance. Depending on the venue, this subtext even permeates the words "and" and "if." :smile:
Here on OL, Objectivism and Rand are starting points. We are attracted to each other because we have a common interest that has impacted our lives in varying degrees of importance, but each person's life and goals are the end points--for them. People determine their values, not a philosophy. Mutual respect for these differences is the only way I have found to make a rich form of interaction and growth work.
If independent thinking is the major frame, then working through ideas is a messy experience, not a neat and tidy one commanded from on high. And OL is a place where we foster independent thinking. What's the use of truth if you have to blind part of your mind to see it? So messy it is--within reason, of course.
When things get too messy and the mess starts hogging the virtual thoroughfares, I step in. But ask around. That's pretty rare. And even then, there's a lot of flexibility. Before I ban or moderate, I generally throw someone's crap in the Garbage Pile and say what's wrong with it. And I try to be open to correction if I screw up.
I personally believe that an independent mind seeking enlightenment through honest, first-hand, personal initiative, even when wrong, is the most precious thing on earth.
That's what OL is all about.
Michael
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/...
2. spread ideas of Objectivism
3.provide a forum for people to discuss the movies and Objectivism.
4. It's ok to criticize Objectivism. It's NOT a site to spam, and not a spot for those who do not believe in reason and logic and want to destroy the community.
5. If one wants to do so- head on over to Huffpost. they will readily oblige
You keep saying "reason and logic", which sticks out to me because I always thought logic was a part of reason.
If you stipulate that the converse of reason is emotion... then what is the converse of logic?
Intuition? Instinct?
I'm not picking on you, but you have to stop tweaking my brain if you want me to stop asking such questions.
Logic is the process through which data is analyzed. Reason is the application of the results of a logical process. Think of it as a mathematical process. In order to arrive at the solution of a trigonometric problem (a reasoned mathematical process), one must first be able to operate in the world of Algebra (logical process).
It has been more generalized in the public to mean "reasoning" itself.
I have little background in philosophy as a science, so I may be totally off base here and if so I respectfully withdrawal. :)
Neither of the two situations is true:
Math studies and codifies philosophy.
Philosophy studies and codifies math.
And since logic studies and codifies reasoning (it is that study and set of codes) and reasoning does study and codify logic, then there is no parallel between the two in the sense I am using.
Logic is the formal study of reasoning and its codification for understanding. Those who have taken logic are simply, and hopefully, more aware of the workings of logic and the things that are not good reasoning (example: the cat is black, that dog is black, therefore, the dog is a cat).
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Just pointed out on the site today as a quick and easy list of fallacies codified by logic.
Not a 100% accurate, but useful.
Yep, we've seen them all, here and elsewhere.
Most of the items on that list are the reasons I left current.com a year or two ago and have dropped out of "discussions" on the Linked In White House Group's forum.
It's much better here!
Sorry to hear about anyone leaving. Everyone has their limits, whether we agree or understand them.
His site is not a free-for-all.
Yes, your name is already out there as you state and it causes me to have greater respect for your opinions. i think of names in the sense of video tape where politicians and talking heads can no longer claim to not have said something that they now take a 190 degree position on because it's convenient for them to do so.
As to your suggestion about an outline of how a moderator should moderate, I will consider expanding on the suggestion or two I've made on a couple of previous posts.
Fred speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
The idea that "moderators know best" is akin to "government knows best"… and we all know what a mess THAT is.
That way if someone really feels it's important to impose censorship, they get to feel the effect themselves. How about it, khalling. Are you ready to ban yourself?
It would be good to know what Hiraghm post you're referring to? " I have asked him not to use that reference again but he is free to do as he pleases." With those kinds of statements, including a quote is helpful to the rest of us. It's difficult enough to find the original string of posts to put things into context.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Posted by Hiraghm 4 hours, 34 minutes ago
"The CIA can be systematically anally raping FOREIGN 2 year olds in front of their parents to get information from them... don't care. Though I may care a little if it's Israeli or British children.
No matter how little respect he may have for the CIA, when he trows around those kind of accusations, he better have proof.
Fred Speckmann
mailto:commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Also, you misunderstand. I take his statement of how much respect he has for the CIA, that they can do no wrong as long as they do it to foreigners, not Americans.
If you don't think that the CIA tortures people here's a manual , 1963, not exactly something new.
http://www.infowars.com/kubark-the-cias-...
As for the other stuff, all you have to do is search 'torture children genitals father' and you should be able to find congressional hearings and justice department document on the incidents; though you might have to dig a little.
Your link does not provide proof of "torture by the CIA or any other government organization of the U.S. It does refer to claims and provides a statement supposedly made by George Bush without quotation marks indicating that at best it is some sort of paraphrasing. it is the obligation of anyone making claims of that sort to provide the proof. Not for the person questioning the claims to search the globe for such proof. we all know that there are plenty of governments that have infact tortured people, usually their own citizens first.
In the U.S. we have had many arguments as to what torture really is and I don't believe that I have ever seen a government document that affirms the legitimacy of "torture" with a definition that we can all agree on. For example, the often argued about accusation of water torture, commonly called water boarding in my opinion is not physical torture and perhaps not even psychological torture. It does instill the fear of the unknown. However its use has been very limited and arguably led to the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden. Hopefully we can all agree that was a good thing. Of course the present administration has not and never will acknowledge that “enhanced interrogation was what led us to the useful information used to find bin Laden.
I surely hope and believe that we have not engaged in officially sanctioned “torture” at least not as I would define it and I believe to be a moral person in coming to such a conclusion. On the other hand, I would find it difficult to object to what some might call a torturous interrogation if all other facts point to a weapon of mass destruction or even a plot to kill one child were planned to take place in 30 minutes and I know for a fact that the person in custody had that information. He has two choices, talk this very second or if not the next step would be final and irreversible. It is a very tough decision but I would make it without hesitation at that point.
Ironically, it would be an easier decision for me if it was your child rather than mine. In the former it would be saving a life without a personal connection to influence my decision.
Respectfully yours,
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
An absurd question since water-boarding didn't take place for periods remotely like 20 hours. Furthermore it's not a question of whether I minded it or not. These enhanced interrogation methods were used on "suspects" who had in fact been detained during acts of actual terrorism. In addition to that , apparently you are a "low information" voter since you don't seem aware that many of our military in fact are water-boarded as part of their own training. Please make sure you understand the background of a discussion on a subject of this seriousness.
Respectfully yours,
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
No, I don't think they can do no wrong. I think they can do wrong. What I expressed was something I consider wrong. But, that's for us to judge, not our enemies, or even our allies.
The topic was Snowden's release of information. My assertion was my indifference to what our country does to non-citizens *compared to what it does to citizens*... in the context of that argument.
Treason consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Revealing to the Russians, for example, our intelligence gathering activities will get back to their ally... Iran. Who will be able to use it against us.
I keep saying that non-citizens are not protected by the Constitution, and people seem to keep reading, nodding, and moving on, still in complete disagreement.
I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate the reality involved. The issue for me was not any immoral, unethical, distasteful behavior on the part of my government, no matter how horrific, but was the government exceeding its Constitutional mandates against *citizens*.
No secret Snowden might have revealed to a foreign power, not even the one I made up, would be as bad as him betraying the country by revealing it to foreign powers.
On the other hand, he's a pukka hero for revealing *to the citizenry* what Constitutional violations the government was performing *against us*.
Yes, I'm dead certain they were offensive to a normally reasonable audience. The idea is offensive. It would not have served its purpose had it not been.
And no, I don't drink, I don't do drugs. I don't like not being in control of myself. I control so little else.
I go to work, I come home, I sit at the computer until I can't stay awake anymore, then I lay on my dilapidated loveseat and try to sleep until my alarm clock tells me it's time to repeat the cycle all over again. I don't have the money to waste on a movie, let alone booze or drugs or tobacco.
I’m going to disagree, regrettably,and not buy that that explanation justifies the actions you took. You are rationalizing. The evidence to what I am saying is in the aftermath of what took place after you posted those particular remarks. No one cared anymore about Snowden or citizen versus non-citizen rights or treason --all they cared about was feeling violated as a reader. You went beyond shocking the senses, you wounded us.In the end:
Snowden, who?
I’m sorry to hear that you don’t drink. I’m still trying to understand why you go so far, and yet..other times..you are really cool to communicate with. (Don’t always agree with you, but I’m not offended normally.) Since you are of sober-mind and by your own words completely aware and have control over what you are doing -- I have nothing to offer in your defense. So, Hiraghm please...lay off the shock-value, lighten up and stick around or don’t.
That being the case, is revealing treason… treason?
Revealing treason against the United States... *to the citizens of the United States*... is not treason.
Revealing it to the rest of the world, gives aid and comfort to our enemies. That's treason.
"...adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I see no evidence that Snowden "adhered" to enemies. Nor that he gave "aid and comfort". One might argue that he's given some "aid" - but clearly no more than was necessary to reveal the treason of the CIA.
Treason? Yes. Treason. The person who spies on me is my enemy. The CIA has not only given these enemies "aid" and "comfort", but it has paid them a paycheck. And when faced with the truth, did the CIA back down? No. It "adhered" to these enemies and tried to shield them.
I think you've got it all backwards. Snowden has released only a tiny portion of the files he took - and he's been careful about not doing things like releasing entire lists of US agents abroad (which it's probable he could have done.) If his goal were to give "aid and comfort" and "adhere" to enemies of America, he could simply have headed off to China, or Russia or North Korea with his treasure trove, sold it all to the highest bidder (no doubt for many millions of dollars) and never even have risked exposure. Instead, he has risked his future to inform the American people how traitors within the government have sorely abused their power.
Snowden may have only released a tiny portion of the files he took, but he placed himself in the custody... along with his files, of our enemies.
Again, it is between us and our government. He was patriotic... until he ran to hide amongst our enemies.
Your reasoning is the same sort of tribalistic reaction that keeps the "Democrats" fighting with the "Republicans", as if there's much difference.
Where is the difference between a Russian government that wants to spy on Americans and an American administration that wants to spy on Americans? I'd argue that the latter is WORSE.
We saw what happened when Manning published the "Collateral Murder" video. Have you seen that? A video that details the glee with which American military personnel murder innocent people? They way they chomp at the bit for permission to murder a good samaritan who came upon the original scene of carnage, then finally murder him and shoot up his two small children?
Manning tried to elevate concerns through channels, and look where he is now. Snowden tried to elevate things through channels as well, but who can blame him for not wanting to spend years in solitary confinement for helping liberate Americans from their government?
Finally, look at the response of the administration. If they believe Snowden behaved improperly, that's one thing. But what excuse do they have for not pursuing the criminals in the CIA at LEAST as aggressively as they are Snowden?
There is no excuse. They are criminals presiding over other criminals - cockroaches blaming the light that has exposed their criminality.
You "get them all".
You want censorship.
Ever wonder what you do to attract that kind of attention from other members of the Gulch?
Is it possible that it's not "everyone else", but you who are the problem?
You?
Should I follow him out the gate?
and no
Sheesh. I bet Bobo's behind it...
"strong opinions, weakly held". To me, the idea is that I try to hold opinions that are are logically valid and factually correct as possible, therefore "strong" opinions. However, I should always be open to the idea that my logic might be flawed or there might be facts that I have not considered. I should not attach my personal identity or my ego to my opinions and should be willing to relinquish them in the face of a superior argument without becoming defensive.
Anyway - I would consider reasons why I should not hold this opinion but think it is a reasonable way to live life. I also find that I am happier when I do not feel as invested personally in any debate in which I choose to participate.
Because, if I find I'm wrong, I change my mind.
I also used to say that I used to have an open mind, until I discovered too many people mistaking it for an open garbage can.
I've noticed that about you.
I shudder a bit at the suggestion of censorship in the form of over moderation, as that does not sound like something that belongs in philosophy.
I also quiver a bit at the use of the word change, unless clearly defined - we have been burned on change for the sake of change.
Without going against Rand's definition of Objectivism, I do feel we all must find the best way to make it part of our daily lives, depending where we are in the learning process. I find no fault with that. I have heard some criticized for not being purists, yet that very reaction is less than pure. I remember tutoring freshmen coming into college, who had no grasp of logic as a subject. It was so difficult for them to grasp, and yet such a triumph when they finally got it. Another time, I saw a sophomore require the rescue squad, in the middle of a discussion of free choice in a class which also included the works of Rand. He actually had an anxiety attack, as the concept was so foreign to him after a public school education. We have to remember that although Rand's ideas came to some of us as if we had found someone thinking our own thoughts, for others, it is a long, and even scarey process. Perhaps it is in our best interest to help them get it, and apply it to a myriad of topics. A wise professor told a class I took, "Times change, people do not." However, we all can learn every day.
No.
"Hope and Change"? Bad. Bad. BAD!
I to judge"??
Sorry to see anyone leave a site due to a perceived slight or difference of opinion.
I wish you well in the future, "Truth...", Adieu.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSijB9-Hw...
:D
I care not what others think about me...more what they think about the Truth and my ideas.
BTW, you guys are funny.
That's my job.
Don't make me call the shop steward.
Stay and fight. I need your help.....