Freedom of Speech--How Far?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

This last post of Richard's (below) shows perfectly the cognitive-normative inversion. It's all about the glories of burning the Qu'ran in the place where identification should be.

I denounce Terry Jones fundamentalism myself - in fact, I denounce all religion in so far as it is irrational. Unlike Michael though, I do not denounce his burning of the Qur'an. In fact, I applaud his freedom to burn it, and would say to Terry Jones feel free to burn more if that is your want. Michael, and it seems you, and others here, put him down for burning it, for his insensitivity to those who revere it. As far as I'm concerned it's better that he speaks his mind and feels free to do so. Those who revere Qur'ans' need to get used to tolerating things that might offend them if they want to raise themselves up to the standard the West requires. They can practice on Terry Jones.

You persistently claim to see a difference that isn't there.

There's a difference. Michael isn't going to give Islamic supremacists anything to practice on, and he encourages everyone else to do the same.

[Greybird]

How far, you ask?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Tef3IEWCM

"Through the good and lean years / And for all the in-between years."

I'm ready to fire up the flux capacitor and go back to 1957. Far fewer people then had forgotten how to stand up to cretins like Graham.

[Brant Gaede]

Sacrificing innocent people on both sides is not necessary to win this ideological war.

Michael

No one has sacrificed innocent people, and burning a Qur'an is not a sacrifice of innocent people, unless of course you are implying that Terry Jones is partly responsible for the murders that have been done. It's unclear to me why Terry Jones burning of a Qur'an is dangerous and sacrifices innocent people, whereas your publishing of the cartoon of Muhammad on your website is a stand for freedom of speech, rather than dangerous and a sacrifice of innocent people.

Richard

If you own a book you can burn it or what-not-it. Just last week I smashed down a hb copy of Atlas Shrugged and threw it in the trash because it was a mess. I was angry, but it had nothing to do with AS or Rand; it was merely the book at hand. Fortunately, I still have my tenth aniversay copy around--somewhere. Fortunately, I don't need that LP intro. to "Who is John Galt?"

--Brant

Edited April 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Greybird]

[...] Fortunately, I don't need that [Leonard Peikoff introduction] to "Who is John Galt?"

Fortunately, nobody does. What tedious bilge they are. I won't share Rand editions that include them.

No one seems to remark on how, if Rand is a writer of utter and almost pellucid clarity (and she was), such introductions become superfluous, if not pernicious. Peikoff couldn't see inside Rand's head. He likes to give the impression he could and, thirty years after her death, can still do so.

I just felt something unaccustomed to me: a wave of pity for Peikoff. All he'll ever be remembered for is being a second-hander, giving unnecessary exegesis for his mentor's work, and traducing the prospects for its intellectual penetration into the culture. What a shabby way to frame one's own, irreplaceable life.

[Brant Gaede]

[...] Fortunately, I don't need that [Leonard Peikoff introduction] to "Who is John Galt?"

Fortunately, nobody does. What tedious bilge they are. I won't share Rand editions that include them.

No one seems to remark on how, if Rand is a writer of utter and almost pellucid clarity (and she was), such introductions become superfluous, if not pernicious. Peikoff couldn't see inside Rand's head. He likes to give the impression he could and, thirty years after her death, can still do so.

I just felt something unaccustomed to me: a wave of pity for Peikoff. All he'll ever be remembered for is being a second-hander, giving unnecessary exegesis for his mentor's work, and traducing the prospects for its intellectual penetration into the culture. What a shabby way to frame one's own, irreplaceable life.

The Eddie Willers of Objectivism falls short of Eddie Willers.

Imagine Ayn Rand alive today seeing LP's intro to her magnum opus. He wouldn't get a penny. It's not his intro; it'd be anybody's. Maybe in another fifty or a hundred years an intro would be desirable and necessary to explain the antiques and contexts. In fairness to LP, when he wrote that intro the fulminating economic and political realities were not so blatantly obvious to hoi polloi as they are more and more blatantly becoming obvious today. Still, his intro belonged, if at all, as an afterword. Now, where in the hell did that "intellectual heir" come from anyway? Nathaniel Branden could always come with more standard Objectivism looking at his little finger any day I can remember. OPAR was really OPLP, derivatively from OPAR. OPAR was a lie on the face of it. I can write a better OPAR than he did and it'd be scholarly and true to OPAR. But where's the need? The need is for, not OPAR, but simply O, for one and all.

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

Michael's the one who needs to do some identification here. It isn't all about "the glories of burning the Qur'an" at all. That's obviously just what he wants to see - he has me pegged as a bigot, so he'll find the evidence. He's doing the very thing that he accuses me of. I hope that you, Carol, are more observant than he is.

[Brant Gaede]

You know, I can't imagining my treating a copy of AS the way I did except for that Intro. It was all subconscious. I think I still have all the paperbacks I had in the army in 1965. At Ft. Sam Houston, Texas in 1965, I had them all displayed on my bunk to catch the eye of the inspecting officer while my shit-head NCO lectured the officer who was thumbing through them about how insignificant and bad Rand was. I didn't say a word of course, but I knew no junior officer would tolerate that from any NCO even without saying a word. He said nothing, but he might have gone on to read her. I was sensitive even then to certain sociological army facts. Namely, junior officers were more in tune to junior enlisted men than non-commissioned officers if brains were involved because we were about the same age, but a non-com was beneath them for they should have either left the army by then or gone to officer's school. I saw the obverse of this in Vietnam when an officer being an officer had no truck with any of us who weren't. He was an officer and we weren't. This was implicit army protocol, but it wasn't SF protocol. He was killed in action several months after I left Vietnam. I don't know why. But it may have been the absence of an enlisted man telling him, "Sir, we best not to do this. Try this instead."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... he has me pegged as a bigot, so he'll find the evidence.

Richard,

I don't think you are a bigot. Not deep down. If I felt that, I would take other measures. I've said over and over that OL is not a hate site. That means it is not a site for bigots to preach.

I do think you are making a fundamental error in thinking (and feeling) that leads you to make bigoted statements. And I argue against them.

You even identify yourself by the very thing you claim to despise. Look at your moniker. You let your "enemy" set the entire agenda of your discourse.

There is no "Richard" there. There is only anti this and anti that.

It's like cops who fight drug wars. They need the drug cartels. If one day the cops ever eradicate the cartels, they will be out of a job. They are defined solely by their target.

That's not how you build anything. That's not how you persuade effectively.

Ironically, that is how you strengthen the very thing you claim to despise.

Michael

[Selene]

[...] Fortunately, I don't need that [Leonard Peikoff introduction] to "Who is John Galt?"

ne seems to remark on how, if Rand is a writer of utter and almost pellucid clarity (and she was), such introductions become superfluous, if not pernicious.

pellucid - good one for alliteration

[Richard Wiig]

... he has me pegged as a bigot, so he'll find the evidence.

Richard,

I don't think you are a bigot.

Well, that is a new tune.

I do think you are making a fundamental error in thinking (and feeling) that leads you to make bigoted statements. And I argue against them.

Before 9/11 Islam was never in my thoughts or on my lips. Even after 9/11 it took about a year before I was really taking a closer look at Islam. I wasn't against Islam. I had no ill will towards Islam or muslims, but 9/11 made me sit up and take notice. The more I delved into Islam the more concerned I became at what it is. The point here is that before I felt anything, before I judged anything, I actually did some identification - the very opposite of what you accuse me of.

You even identify yourself by the very thing you claim to despise. Look at your moniker. You let your "enemy" set the entire agenda of your discourse.

Once again, you do the very thing you accuse me of. You haven't identified my motivation at all, you just know it. How exactly? What specifically have you identified that leads you to your conclusion?

There is no "Richard" there. There is only anti this and anti that.

There is no "anti this and anti that". There is anti something very specific. You flippantly trivialise important matters and blur what those specific matters are.

It's like cops who fight drug wars. They need the drug cartels. If one day the cops ever eradicate the cartels, they will be out of a job. They are defined solely by their target.

Once again, a comment that does nothing but blur. The comparison does not hold, and even worse, it morally inverts the actors. Those who oppose Islamic supremacism would not be the cops, they'd be the dealers who want the cops gone so that they can trade in freedom. Opposing Islamic supremacists is not just a means to a purpose in life, like the police tyrants who've made a life out of the drug wars. The police tyrants are the collectivists there. Likewise, when it comes to Islamic jihad, it's the jihadists who are the collectivists, and their target is free people who just want to trade in peace. Being left alone to trade in peace, is the goal. A far cry from needing Islamic supremacism in order to gain a purpose in life.

[Richard Wiig]

... he has me pegged as a bigot, so he'll find the evidence.

Richard,

I don't think you are a bigot.

Well, that is a new tune.

I do think you are making a fundamental error in thinking (and feeling) that leads you to make bigoted statements. And I argue against them.

Before 9/11 Islam was never in my thoughts or on my lips. Even after 9/11 it took about a year before I was really taking a closer look at Islam. I wasn't against Islam. I had no ill will towards Islam or muslims, but 9/11 made me sit up and take notice. The more I delved into Islam the more concerned I became at what it is. The point here is that before I felt anything, before I judged anything, I actually did some identification - the very opposite of what you accuse me of.

You even identify yourself by the very thing you claim to despise. Look at your moniker. You let your "enemy" set the entire agenda of your discourse.

Once again, you do the very thing you accuse me of. You haven't identified my motivation at all, you just know it. How exactly? What specifically have you identified that leads you to your conclusion?

There is no "Richard" there. There is only anti this and anti that.

There is no "anti this and anti that". There is anti something very specific. You flippantly trivialise important matters and blur what those specific matters are.

It's like cops who fight drug wars. They need the drug cartels. If one day the cops ever eradicate the cartels, they will be out of a job. They are defined solely by their target.

Once again, a comment that does nothing but blur. The comparison does not hold, and even worse, it morally inverts the actors. Those who oppose Islamic supremacism would not be the cops, they'd be the dealers who want the cops gone so that they can trade in freedom. Opposing Islamic supremacists is not just a means to a purpose in life, like the police tyrants who've made a life out of the drug wars. The police tyrants are the collectivists there. Likewise, when it comes to Islamic jihad, it's the jihadists who are the collectivists, and their target is free people who just want to trade in peace. Being left alone to trade in peace, is the goal. A far cry from needing Islamic supremacism in order to gain a purpose in life. Your blurring of the situation doesn't help one bit towards that peaceful end.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You haven't identified my motivation at all, you just know it. How exactly? What specifically have you identified that leads you to your conclusion?

Your acts and your words.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

You haven't identified my motivation at all, you just know it. How exactly? What specifically have you identified that leads you to your conclusion?

Your acts and your words.

Michael

LOL. No, you've derived certain conclusions about my acts and my words, without identifying anything. Your conclusions are based on your biased and skewed view.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Laugh if you want. But I have constantly said which acts and words of yours I judge.

Here are a couple of examples, just in case you missed them.

When I see a person who identifies himself to others almost 100% in terms of something he claims he hates, even calling himself by that name, it's pretty obvious that this is an important part of this person's motivation.

When I see a person consistently talk about what he hates and why others should hate it too, let's say, roughly in a 90% hatred and 10% other stuff ratio, you don't need to be a rocket scientist or a biased person to realize that hatred is driving him.

I could go on (and I have--all anyone has to do is read my posts in response to your hatred), but this stuff is what it is.

You opinions will not change the reality of how your deeds and words appear to others. If all you talk about is hatred, people are going to conclude you hate.

Well, duh...

That's not biased. That's just observing what's right in front of you.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

Laugh if you want. But I have constantly said which acts and words of yours I judge.

Here are a couple of examples, just in case you missed them.

When I see a person who identifies himself to others almost 100% in terms of something he claims he hates, even calling himself by that name, it's pretty obvious that this is an important part of this person's motivation.

There's that "something I hate" again - unclarified, undefined, unspoken. When you talk against anti-capitalism, against socialism, against fascism, does it mean you're identifying in terms of something you hate? And if I was to focus on your "hate" at the expense of what you had to say about the dangers you refered to, merely smearing shit around, would you say that is entering into a discussion in good faith? Would you consider it in anyway objective? And if you're refering to my Infidel moniker, then you simply take it too seriously. It doesn't get to my motivation at all. To get to, and understand my motivation, first off you have to get to know me, to actually identify certain facts about me to find out exactly where I am coming from. You haven't identified anything in that regard, or even made any attempt to. You simply jump to a conclusion and then toss around denigratory labels.

That's not biased. That's just observing what's right in front of you.

Michael

That is very biased and shows a complete lack of objectivity.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To get to, and understand my motivation, first off you have to get to know me, to actually identify certain facts about me to find out exactly where I am coming from. You haven't identified anything in that regard, or even made any attempt to.

Richard,

I certainly do not have to jump through your arbitrary hoops to come to a conclusion about you. I go on what you say and what you do, just like I do with everybody else. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

Now let's get something straight. I'm only interested in your motivation insofar as you keep within the posting guidelines on this forum, which you have shown no interest in doing. I don't care what motivates you elsewhere. That's your life, go live it. I'm not interested.

My concern is this forum and keeping the environment on it to a decent level of intellectual pursuit and goodwill.

OL is not a hate site and it is not for preaching bigotry.

Period.

Just because I've been flexible with you and a few others and given my reasons for doing so, that doesn't mean you are winning any kind of stupid game or have opened the door for preaching bigoted sentiments here. I don't want that crap on OL and this is not open to dispute. hairsplitting, rationalizations, attack as defense, monkey-see-monkey-do retorts, manipulations, twisted definitions, feigned ignorance, leading questions, or any other form you keep devising to sneak it in. You are starting to exhaust my patience.

Please respect the posting guidelines or don't stay. I don't care which you do, but it's going to be one or the other. If you don't choose to make it so, I will. Promoting bigotry on OL is not on the table. It is not welcome here.

Enough already.

Michael