Distractions from Objectivism

Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago to The Gulch: General
88 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I am shocked by the negative comments about me on the “What the Gulch Is” thread. I knew people disagreed on stuff, but I didn't realize people were thinking about not using the website just because of me or that so many people think I'm anti-Objectivist. I agree with the tenor of the vast majority of what I read here, so I assumed people similarly agreed with me.

Some comments focus on things I know most people disagree with me on:
Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW will likely have huge costs in the future. It's one of the biggest problems of our time.
President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't.
PPACA – It's a mixed bag and a huge improvement over the system we had based on vestiges of WWII-era price controls. We need to get away from gov't “systems”, but IMHO the law did more good than harm.
Welfare Programs for the Poor – They're not always alms. If it's moral to do forced taxation for a proven program to catch an incarcerate criminals, it's moral to do forced taxation to provide something like job training if it's proven to reduce criminal behavior.
Religion – Most educated religious people of the world are moderates whose worldview is informed by their cultural traditions but who generally accept reason and religious pluralism in their daily lives. The raving Bible-thumper, the Islamist militant, child-molesting priest, and the people who promote essential oils are the exception to the rule, the man-bites-dog cases that grab our attention. We need to promote pluralism and avoid needlessly taking on someone's Olive Tree (in the Thomas Friedman sense of the phrase).

How these fit into Objectivism is a very good question beyond the scope of this post. All the things I agree with most people here on are also beyond the scope.

I don't apologize for disagreeing with people, but I sincerely apologize to anyone I've been cranky with regarding my pet peeves. My peeves are arguments that sound like this:
- “My life is ruined because of [President Obama, Wall Street, monetary policy, etc].”
- “You voted for President Bush. That means you're personally responsible for Medicare Part D and the invasion of Iraq.”
- “I keep yelling at people about how stupid they are, but for some reason they won't respond by changing their minds.”
- Any argument that says something is non sequitur or based on faulty premises without stating the logical fallacy or faulty premises.
I am sorry about when I let my peeves make me rude.

I feel weird responding to any posts with this thread out there of people carrying on condemning me. Should I just respond with my ideas on a posts about things like ham radio, being cautious of the tidy narrative that the US was founded on purely libertarian principles, or about John Adams and imposing democratic gov't and central banking on the world, without regard for all the people saying they don't want me to comment at all? I don't want to bother people when there's a universe of people, maybe people you might consider anti-Objectivist, to talk to.

I feel awful about distracting people from Objectivism, and I want it to stop.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by JCLanier 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Ibecame:
    Yes, you are right that, and I quote you, "Hank did not let a non threatening situation have power over him"... But, may I remind you, that Hank didn't hang around making conversations with the moochers either. He made his statement and cut it short.

    Galt suffered no fools. None of the primary characters in the AS Gulch lost time listening to the drivel of any of the moochers/looters.
    When do you draw the line? How long can one stumble around and NOT make progress? What if they regress constantly? Rand teaches us that, "We are not our brothers keeper".

    I would beg the question that the current Gulch members DID reason and decide with their minds.
    The heart leads often to excusing contradictions and not seeing the defects in reasoning as well as applying sympathy instead of logic.

    I truly believe that CG has a problem. A big problem with logic and reason. I do not believe that anyone in the Gulch can save CG from himself. After all that took place over him and he has been addressed directly about this, he still initiated this incongruent post... As they say, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.

    To ignore him, in my opinion is cruel. To ask him to leave this forum and tell him why is granting him a chance to understand and learn from his loss.

    Respectively my opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Would you mind elaborating on what it is that obama does that you do agree with? I understand that you didn't intend to debate it here but I'm not sure where else to ask. I'm not sure anybody else here is interested anymore but I am curious to find out what you know that no one else here seems to. Including myself, honestly. I have not researched all your past comments and I hardly understand what went on lately so I have minimal preconceived notions about you. (attempt at humor. Ignore at will). You have presented a list of (some of) your views here that are a bit disturbing from an Objectivist point of view (or probably a libertarian as well) and I am genuinely wondering how you reconcile those views with your obvious knowledge of Objectivism. Because from what I have seen you may know Objectivism better than I do and just do not understand it as well as you think. The only alternative that I can see at this point (as has already been suggested by others) is that you are here for another purpose and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
    Should you choose to reply please don't dissect my comments and attack the weaknesses in my writing. I am not a writer, nor a public speaker. I'm not a highly educated person. I'm just a guy who discovered Objectivism just in time. Literally. And I am convinced that it is the only thing that can fix this country. Just not convinced there is enough time.
    Anyway, I started this with a question. Let's talk Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 10 years ago
    I have read through all of the posts on this subject before drawing any conclusions. This whole thing reminds me of "Hank Rearden's" looter-shaddow; He didn't let a non-threatning situation have power over him. Some of you that may be offended by my comments. I sympathize with you but do not apologize. Those that are offended I believe have forgotten this part of "Atlas Shrugged"; "If any part of your uncertainty," said Gault, "is a conflict between your Heart and your Mind---follow your Mind".
    I agree with "sdesapio" in that "CG" shouldn't be removed, banished, or whatever. I am very sorry that those that are leaving chose to think with their "Hearts"(Ego) rather than their "Minds". If they were thinking with their minds they would immediately realize that being a member of the Gulch has benefits that far outweigh leaving. Especially since all you had to do was ignore CG if you don't like his position on items of discussion. I would bet that not one person dissenting sent him a message and simply explained to him that they would like for him to not comment on their specific posts. No, I don't agree with many of the positions that CG takes. My opinion is that those positions are not very well researched and thought out. However, LEARNING TO THINK is a ongoing process, and although I haven't found the point where Ayn Rand said this; it appears to be the foundation of her life. I truly hope those that said they are leaving reconsider the benefits of being in the Gulch.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The thing about President Obama doing a decent job is to say I support him although don't agree with everything he does. I didn't mean to debate those points in this post but rather to say I don't hide the fact I have ideas that many other Objectivists disagree with.

    The thing about "My life is ruined b/c of X" was an example of claims that annoy me. I was apologizing if I let my annoyance make me rude.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "One part I strongly agree with is that you shouldn't expend such energy on someone you have contempt for."

    I have no contempt for you personally. I have no idea who you are. This site is dedicated to the ideas of Ayn Rand. Among her many talents was the ability to choose words to explain her ideas with laser-like precision, that is, her readers are left with no doubt as to where she stood on any particular issue. The greatest philosopher Aristotle wrote "...the strongest of all our convictions is that two contradictory statements are not both true at the same time..."

    You, on the other hand, posted these statements "President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't.”
    and
    - “My life is ruined because of [President Obama, Wall Street, monetary policy, etc].”
    in the same post!

    I have no idea what these statements mean. What is a "decent job"? If he is doing a "decent job" why has it ruined your life.?

    Your words, like those of Obama, are open to any interpretation your readers would care to make of them. Whether this is because of defect or by intent one is left with the sense that you are posting on the wrong site.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    One part I strongly agree with is that you shouldn't expend such energy on someone you have contempt for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "believing something does not make it a fact of reality"
    Yes. This is key. We get closer to the truth by experiments, observations, and reason. Part of that is being open to new evidence that we are wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years ago
    CircuitGuy I normally avoid trolls going on the premise that like one's teeth if you ignore them they will go away.
    I'm posting Ellsworth Toohey's speech on how to rule men's souls from the Fountainhead for those who have may have forgotten Rand's description of evil and may have been driven from the Gulch by yours.
    http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-...
    The technique he employed was to be anti-Reason viz. the Kantian concept that you are blind because you have eyes, deaf because you have ears, dumb because you have a brain. The tactic you employ is to make sweeping unproved assertions as if they are self-evident truths requiring no further proof. In that, you are a match for Barrack Obama. Trying to engage in reasoned discourse on your assertions concerning;
    AGW
    President Obama
    PPACA
    Welfare programs for the poor
    Religion
    is to waste precious time boxing with shadows - an effort unworthy of a reasoning mind.
    I cannot understand why so much energy was expended on your marshmallow utterances when benign neglect would have sufficed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by ShruginArgentina 10 years ago
    " I agree with the tenor of the vast majority of what I read here, so I assumed people similarly agreed with me."

    Assumptions often lead to erroneous conclusions.

    There are two assertions in your post with which I disagree and welcome rational discussion:

    "Welfare Programs for the Poor – They're not always alms. If it's moral to do forced taxation for a proven program to catch an incarcerate criminals, it's moral to do forced taxation to provide something like job training if it's proven to reduce criminal behavior. "

    This is a perfect example of an "argument" which Ayn Rand would respond to by saying, "Check your premises."

    Rand never said or wrote that "forced taxation" is moral and she never supported the idea of tax funded "job training" programs, including "public" education at any level.

    "President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't."

    President Obama is far from being a "mainstream politician" and he's doing more as one person to accelerate the trend toward more intrusive and costly government than all of those who held the office before him...combined.

    I have no doubt that you believe what you wrote about Obama, but believing something does not make it a fact of reality. What Obama has done and is continuing to do at an accelerated pace can be factually demonstrated. Even though it is not being reported in the mainstream media, the factual information is available and many have provided links to it in their posts here in the Gulch (as well as express their own opinions).

    I believe that all who desire to express their opinion should be able to so so "freely" with the exception of the trolls, and I don't regard you as one.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo