Tuesday, September 30, 2014

A Little Ancient History

In response to a commenter who claims that ARCHNbloggers like myself are too "cowardly" to go on Objectivist sites and debate their philosophy first hand, here's a couple of screenshots of my user activity on a couple of O-ist sites from a few years back - Rebirth of Reason (formerly SoloHQ), and Objectivist Living.
There's nearly 2,000 posts there, covering a period of around a decade,  all under my own name - which is more than can be said for this particular fellow, who in a totally non-cowardly way prefers a pseudonym. 



So, so much for that. Will I now rise to his challenge of going on and doing it all over again on Objectivist Answers? Well, clearly I hardly need to, and for now I have better things to do. I'm not even spending that much time in the last few years on the ARCHNblog. It was fun while it lasted, but there isn't that much that interests me about Objectivism these days - I've heard it all before.

But never say never...


274 comments:

1 – 200 of 274   Newer›   Newest»
Daniel Barnes said...

So can we expect Quan to withdraw his claims in the face of the evidence?…;-)

Daniel Barnes said...

Also one should note that many Objectivists forums do not allow opposing views, and block critics in the first place - agreement with Objectivism is a requirement for entry. As I recall Betty Speicher from Objectivism Online politely declined my request to participate once I explained my purpose was to critique the philosophy. Also see Harry Binswanger's infamous Loyalty Oath.

Of course, this is not at all cult-like behaviour.

Anonymous said...

A while ago Craig Biddle posted on The Objective Standard blog that homosexual conduct was just fine and that opposition to homosexuality was based on religion.

I posted a comment that plenty of secular people have considered homosexuality wrong, naming Ayn Rand as one.

My post was deleted and I was banned.

I guess this is what Quant considers open minded dialogue.

Neil Parille

Anon69 said...

"It was fun while it lasted, but there isn't that much that interests me about Objectivism these days"

Amen to that. I read AS in '02, got sucked down the rabbit hole and spent most of a decade reading Ayn Rand's books and posting on Objectivist forums until I outgrew it, mainly because Objectivism just doesn't work. ARCHNBlog was a halfway house; I frequented it, read the ARCHN book, and after a while found myself visiting less and less often. I now consider myself fully recovered and Objectivism-free for the past few years. Life is good - and better without Ayn Rand!

Daniel Barnes said...

Amen to that, Anon69 - though the brilliant New Intellectuals at somewhere like Objectivist Answers would no doubt interpret our mutual use of that term as indicating our hidden mystical premises, this underlying psycho-epistemological error then explaining our rejection of the otherwise undeniable truth of Randian doctrine…

Actually I went and had a look at Objectivist Answers just out of curiosity as I hadn't been there in a while. Certainly didn't see anything like the intellectual "heavy hitting" that Quan insisted was going on there, and certainly no arguments on anything critical that I hadn't heard before. It was just the usual Objectivist tactic of bold headlines followed by waffling, pusillanimous verbal retreats, all delivered in that trademark robot-on-the-fritz style of the Objectivist apparatchik. Gotta say grandma hits heavier than anything I saw over there. And for all her faults, at least Rand had some personality and style, unlike the generations of mediocre drones she's given birth to.

Strelnikov said...

"Gotta say grandma hits heavier than anything I saw over there. And for all her faults, at least Rand had some personality and style, unlike the generations of mediocre drones she's given birth to."

That happens waaay too much in cults.... David Miscavage will never be as creatively crazy as L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology); nobody in the Hari Krishnas has topped the founder. That N. Branden broke from Rand was inevitable because he was as willful as she was; for her group to survive the situation DEMANDED a nebbish like Peikoff.

Jeffrey Newholm said...

This is for who have been following this blog for a few years: in 2011, I thought it would be funny if I went "undercover" at an all-expenses paid Objectivist conference. However, I have come to realize that what I did was wrong. Objectivsm may not be the "one true philosophy" but they are decent people and deserve better. I regret what I have done, and hope that no one else has the same idea for such future conferences. If the post could be deleted I would be glad.

Daniel Barnes said...

Done, no problem Jeffrey.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barnes

_"So can we expect Quan to withdraw his claims in the face of the evidence?"_

Nah, you still act like a coward as far as I can see.

And this is supported by your refusal to go to Objectivist Answers and interact there or on Dawson Bethrick's blog.

Go onto the sites and talk your mes and abuse there and tell them how wrong they are in Objectivsm and randroid this and cult that, then we see if you are not a coward.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Parille

"I guess this is what Quant considers open minded dialogue."

Nope I don't. But that is not even remotely different to the behavior of Christians on Youtube.

And pales in comparison to Muslims who are instructed to kill those who are not or oppose or even leave Islam.

Why aren't you crying about Islam then like you do with Objectivism? Based on the evidence, it's much more destructive and harmful.

It's not because of cowardice is it, where you know you can talk crap about Objectivism and Objectvists because they are peaceful and don't hurt anyone, ever as far as I know.

But with Muslims, you say something negative about them and you risk your life?

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Anon69

"until I outgrew it,"


Why would you need to outgrow objective reality in metaphysics, rational self interest in ethics, reason in epistemology, and individual rights and capitalism in politics?

What about that needs to be grown out of and what did you grow to from those?

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barnes

"Gotta say grandma hits heavier than anything I saw over there. And for all her faults, at least Rand had some personality and style, unlike the generations of mediocre drones she's given birth to."


The above is exactly what I'm thinking of and talking about Barney-boy.

Did you talk that type of mess over at Obejctivist living and get all froggy and abusive like that over there?

I am not in a position to honestly say you did not, but I seriously, seriously doubt you did, and that goes back to you being a coward.

As I said, it's easy to get all froggy when you are the majority or on friendly territory. It takes courage and boldness to do so when you are not.

Daniel Barnes said...

Quan:
>As I said, it's easy to get all froggy when you are the majority or on friendly territory. It takes courage and boldness to do so when you are not.

Quan, for once you and I quite agree. I've spent more than enough time in unfriendly territory to know that first hand. I accept the implicit compliment.

All I ever did in places like OL is make just the kind of arguments I've made here.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barnes

"All I ever did in places like OL is make just the kind of arguments I've made here"

Sure you did Barney. Arguments? But did you get all abusive and talk crap like you do here too. That's the question.

I placed an excellent challenge for you over on the previous blog posting.

Put up or shut Barney. You talk a lot of mess and insults. Lets see you back it up a little bit.

Daniel Barnes said...

And I've told you why that's not going to happen anytime soon. At nearly 2k posts on unfriendly territory under my own name, I've done more than enough already - more than you ever will, that's for sure, Junior Woodchuck.

But never say never, and if I get a dull moment I might wander over sometime….;-) If I do you'll be the first to know.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barney

"And I've told you why that's not going to happen anytime soon"

Yeah, I bet it won't. Proving me right as usual.

But obviously you didnt read my challenge because if you did, I already anticipated your cowardice and gave a secondary challenge.

Mark Plus said...

The Atlas Society has uploaded a video of a talk at its last conference about the role of aphorisms in philosophy. Of course, if aphorisms, proverbs and related concise observations about life going back to antiquity show that our ancestors possessed enough wisdom to help them to keep the human species in business through Rand's Revelation in 1957, then you have to wonder what Rand contributed that late in the game which made any practical difference.

Mark Plus said...

Has anyone gone through Objectivist literature to construct a profile of what I call an "Operating Objectivist" (OO), namely, what characteristics an OO might have, other than the ability for the male versions to live without sex for much of their lives?

I haven't seen anyone remark on this ability shown by the OO character Hank Rearden. Apparently an OO can perform mental arithmetic quickly:

"Well, let me see," said Rearden. "Orren Boyle's Associated Steel owns 60 open-hearth furnaces, one-third of them standing idle and the rest producing an average of 300 tons of steel per furnace per day.

I own 20 open-hearth furnaces, working at capacity, producing tons of Rearden Metal per furnace per day. So we own 80 'pooled' furnaces with a 'pooled' output of 27,000 tons, which makes an average of 337.5 tons per furnace. Each day of the year, I, producing 15,000 tons, will be paid for 6,750 tons. Boyle, producing 12,000 tons, will be paid for 20,250 tons. Never mind the other members of the pool, they won't change the scale, except to bring the average still lower, most of them doing worse than Boyle, none of them producing as much as I. Now how long do you expect me to last under your Plan?"


Now, in the real world, some people do have this ability, and apparently you can learn techniques for this as well. I can see how this would come in handy for an industrialist and businessman like Rearden. But I've never run across anything about mental math in all the offerings of Objectivist propaganda about personal development. Seems like they have made a significant oversight.

Anonymous said...

OK Daniel, admit it.

QH is a sock puppet.

I know it was fun creating a caricature-defender of Ayn Rand, but it doesn't work anymore. This guy isn't real. Nobody is this dumb. Nice try, Daniel.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Anonymous

Hahaha! You actually wasted your time writing that trollish crap.

What a childish response. Second one given as Jzero came up with a childish response but not as infantile as yours.

And to show you how it works around here, this anonymous fool just talked some crap and spewed some abuse, but did even less than put his real name, he put no name at all. Not even a moniker.

Do you think ol hypocrite Barnes is going to take him to task for that? LOL!

Michael Stuart Kelly said...

Daniel,

I just saw this. For those who don't know, I own OL.

If anyone doubts, I consider you an online friend who I loved sparring with. Sure, we got a bit snarky to each other at times, but you are intelligent and there were some real ideas flowing. I'm sure if I ever meet you face to face, we will become friends for real.

I consider myself to be a pretty good judge of character. From all my interaction with you, I know you are good people.

You said you got tired of O-Land BS. I hear you. I get tired, too.

It's the ideas, bro. Not the snark. It's not even a Rand-Popper shootout. That was always just for fun.

See you around, Daniel. I'm not here to ask you to become active on OL again. That's your business. You appear to be doing well and that makes me happy.

I'm just speaking up because some people seem to be doubting your creds.

But from my end, you are always welcome on OL.

Anytime.

(God, I hope I don't regret that. :) )

Michael

Daniel Barnes said...

Thanks for dropping by Mike. I can also testify that Objectivist Living is run with an openness, civility, and tolerance for dissenting ideas that is rare-to-non-existent in O-land, and the very fact that they would tolerate and engage with a critic like myself is of immense credit to Michael and the community who post there. While I don't anticipate returning to the fray anytime soon, I did enjoy my time on OL and many of the people there, regardless of our intellectual disagreements. Anyway, thanks for the note, I have also dropped you a line over at OL.

Gordon Burkowski said...

@ Daniel & Michael:

Thanks for this exchange. It was heartening to read. And, given the context, also cleansing.

So perhaps it's a particularly good time to raise a new and key question:

Whither ARCHN?

It has been a pleasure to follow this blog. I think of the contributions of Ellen Stuttle, Michael Prescott, Neil Parille. And many others, of course - including Echo Chamber Escapee, who has a moniker which I truly covet.

But the reality is that the blog is running down. There were over a hundred posts from 2007 to 2009; since that time, the number has steadily declined. This year there may not even be a dozen.

As I see it, you have to either remake yourselves - or sign off, with well-wishing from many and shouts of glee from the usual suspects.

But if you opt for remaking, what form would that take? I don't know - but I think it's worth finding out what ideas are out there.

10/18/2014 01:26:00 PM

Strelnikov said...

"Whither ARCHN?

It has been a pleasure to follow this blog. I think of the contributions of Ellen Stuttle, Michael Prescott, Neil Parille. And many others, of course - including Echo Chamber Escapee, who has a moniker which I truly covet.

But the reality is that the blog is running down. There were over a hundred posts from 2007 to 2009; since that time, the number has steadily declined. This year there may not even be a dozen."

- Gordon Burkowski

That's because Objectivism is running out of gas. The third "Atlas Shrugged" film was a flop, neither of the Ayn Rand mouthpiece "institutes" are making real noise, so the whole thing seems to be going around in circles. Unlike other philosophies, Objectivism is a closed system; if I were a philosopher and I had come up with some radical new take on Ayn Rand Thought it would be impossible for the Objectivist movement to take me seriously because I'm not an insider. And anyway, they want no new changes because Rand is "perfect."

Daniel Barnes said...

What Strelnikov said.

Objectivism is stagnant at best, going backward at worst. Rand had a potential moment with the Tea Party movement, but her most visible political advocate, Paul Ryan, has distanced himself. An Ayn Rand candidate seems as unelectable right now as her movies seem unbankable. The Cato takeover seems to have resulted in nothing in particular. At an academic level, Objectivism's one shot at philosophical innovation in the last 30 years since Rand's death, The Logical Leap, has ended in debacle and schism.

The sad fact is there is precious little current and compelling to write about these days. Greg has done yeoman's work on Rand's past writings, but this must come to an end eventually. They are simply not very fertile!

My original vision for the blog, as stated way back when we started, was simply as a "low volume" site that can serve as a counter-archive for people who are questioning of Objectivism's doctrines. (There is after all a huge volume of pro-Rand writing on the net). That it has developed the way it has has been surprising, and is mostly due to Greg's efforts and the contributions of our small but interested audience. Hopefully people have found it useful, and will continue to as very comprehensive reference. But given the comatose current state of Objectivism, I personally doubt it needs much constant monitoring at this time.

Anonymous said...

<@Michael Stuart Kelly: "I consider myself to be a pretty good judge of character."

I've heard that often — but only from you. The fact is, you couldn't even be a competent judge of character (let alone a "pretty good one") since your own character is so corrupted by addictions to alcohol, narcotics, and porn (from the movie theater you admitted working in while living in Brazil); as well as narcissistic delusions of living "an excellent life" that include imagining yourself endowed with astute judgment of other people's character, intellect, and wisdom.

In other words, your own psychology — er, uh, I mean, "psycho-epistemology" — has decayed to the point where you believe your own bullshit.

That's been obvious to many people for a long time, and explains why many people believe you're quite simply mentally ill.

<"It's the ideas, bro."

LOL! Just as long as the Sainted Rand and Holy Objectivism aren't seriously challenged by means of logic, evidence, experience, history, science, mathematics, or anything else. When that happens, you're the first one to claim the challenge must have been made with "evil intentions" indicating "bad character", which you then use as an excuse to ban the challenger summarily from OL. That has been the usual scenario on your site.

The idea that OL embraces some sort of vibrant freemasonry of ideas and opinions is not so much laughable as it is delusional on your part, since you probably actually believe it.

I agree with those many people mentioned above, Michael Stuart Kelly: you ARE mentally ill.

Lloyd Flack said...

Annonymous, Michael Kelly was civil when he came over here. Being civil in return is warranted.

Echo Chamber Escapee said...

@Daniel Barnes: My original vision for the blog, as stated way back when we started, was simply as a "low volume" site that can serve as a counter-archive for people who are questioning of Objectivism's doctrines. ... That it has developed the way it has has been surprising, and is mostly due to Greg's efforts and the contributions of our small but interested audience. Hopefully people have found it useful, and will continue to as very comprehensive reference.

I've found it quite useful, and I want to thank you and Greg for all the effort you've put it. I think you've achieved your initial vision and then some. Well done!

But given the comatose current state of Objectivism, I personally doubt it needs much constant monitoring at this time.

Yes, one reaches a point where there's little new to say, given that the Objectivists aren't developing anything new.

QuantumHaecceity said...

That was an exceedingly nasty and vicious response from the Anonymous person given how nice and cordial Michael Stuart Kelly was.

Do we expect ol Jzero to pipe in with he usual butt load of self righteous abuse and B.S.?

Of course not. Since he won't be saying anything against a person that thinks like he does. The anonymous clown hates Objectivism so he's alright with Jzero.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Typical animalistic human behavior.

How about old Gordon Burkowski do the right thing and take the Anonymous clown to task with one of his snide, snobby remarks? Nah. Of course not.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Strelnikov

"But the reality is that the blog is running down"

As it should. Greg should shut the hell up at some point. He's gone through everything in Objectivism. How much blather and hate is someone supposed to spew and for how long?


"That's because Objectivism is running out of gas"

No. It's because he has already covered pretty much everything and how long is he supposed to talk crap about one thing.

He should shut the hell up at some point. It's been 8 damn years.


"Objectivism is a closed system"

That simply means the principles upon which it is based are not open to revision or change. And that is because if you change it you are no longer talking about the same philosophy but a different one.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barnes

"Objectivism is stagnant at best, going backward at worst."

How is Objectivism stagnant anymore than Christianity, Islam or Nietzschean philosophy, or Humean philosophy?

What exactly is it supposed to be doing?



"Rand had a potential moment with the Tea Party movement"

The above is a bizarre comment as it makes it seem that Rand is alive when she is not.

Which I notice quite often. Where haters talk about her as if she is still existing when she has been dead for over 30 years.



"The sad fact is there is precious little current and compelling to write about these days"

Good. Then shut the hell up and go away. Take your stupidity, negativity, schadenfreude and hate and focus on something new. Tell stupid snob Greg Nyquiast that since he is done trashing Objectivism, concentrate on trashing something new like Islam.

He's probably too much of a coward to do that though.

It's not like you clowns have refuted Objectivism anyway. This is primarily just a hate site masquerading as intellectual.

To refute Objectivism you have to destroy or decisively refute the fundamental principles it is based on.

You would have to show reality is not objective. You would have to show that reason is not a valid way to come by knowledge. You would have to show that existence does not exist.

You would have to show that egoism is not a valid form of ethics.

You would have to show that individual rights and capitalism are wrong.

Of course, none of you hateful bozos have done anything of the kind. So Objectivism stands unrefuted, though the site does a good job of what it is intended to do.

Which is a hate site for people to gravitate and hate on Objectivism, Objectivists and Ayn Rand, and as a place for people who are on the fence about whether to be an Objectivist or not, to discourage them from being one.

Neil Parille said...

Well there isn't anything particularly exciting going on in the Objectivist world (such as another schism), I'd note that orthodox Objectivists are doing a lot of publishing lately.

Binswanger is out with a new book, Schwartz has one coming, and Gotthelf/Salmieri have a collection in the Blackwell series in philosophy on Rand.

What I'm looking forward to most is the authorized Rand bio by Knapp, but I'm not holding my breath.

Neil Parille said...

This is the Gotthelf/Salmieri book.

http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Rand-Blackwell-Companions-Philosophy/dp/1405186844/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408808831&sr=1-2

Unfortunately, it looks as if the authors will all be ARIans.
_______________
The first publication to offer a serious academic study of Rand’s often marginalized corpus, this comprehensive companion provides critical analysis of her prolific and iconoclastic writings, including her novels, her political commentary, and the essays in which she laid out her philosophy of Objectivism.

The first publication to provide a wide-ranging critical commentary for an academic readership on Rand’s varied and challenging output
Contains chapters by many of the leading experts in Rand’s thought
Provides informed contextual analysis for scholars in a variety of disciplines
Features original research on unpublished material and drafts from the Rand archives in California
Features insightful and fair-minded interpretations of Rand’s controversial beliefs
________

And it's not the "first publication to offer a serious academic study of Rand’s often marginalized corpus. There is Sciabarra's book and the 87 Den Uyl/Rasmussen collection.

Jzero said...

"Do we expect ol Jzero to pipe in with he usual butt load of self righteous abuse and B.S.?

Of course not. Since he won't be saying anything against a person that thinks like he does. The anonymous clown hates Objectivism so he's alright with Jzero."

I didn't say anything about the anonymous person because what needed to be said had already been said by the time I read it.

Also, as near as I can tell, the anonymous isn't criticizing people but also doing the EXACT SAME THING they are criticizing other people for. Calling me out for "self-righteous B.S." is laughable when that is practically your own modus operandi. Your posts about the decline of ARCHN reek of the very schadenfreude you complain about.

You are a hypocrite, and either too clueless to see it, or willfully denying it in the face of its obviousness. Idiot or asshole, you choose.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Jzero

"I didn't say anything about the anonymous person because what needed to be said had already been said"

No I don't think so you fool. Nice try. Even if what needed to be said had already been said every extra voice would count in denouncing and rebuking someone's bad behavior.

Where is this "what needed to be said has already been said", when I'm having something said to me by Barnes, and your punk ass along with Burkowski pipe up with more insults and attack, and gleefully gang up with some self righteous snottery?

Oh wow, lookie there, when it's in your selfish interest, all of a sudden the "what needed to be said had already been said" doesn't apply, or at least you don't mind piping in with a bit extra! LOL!!

Nah, you didn't say anything because you're a punk and a hypocrite. And your behavior is pretty much on the level of an animal. The anonymous person hates Objectivists and Objectivism so he's alright with me. Which is just animal behavior.

Simple as. You've already shown yourself when you never took Barnes or Nyquist to task for their pathetic schadenfreude and nasty, catty, gossipy behavior.



"when that is practically your own modus operandi"

The above was just grade school crap. I know you are but what am I type of schtick. I said it first so you are saying it back to me like some 12 year old.

QuantumHaecceity said...

"Well there isn't anything particularly exciting going on in the Objectivist world (such as another schism)"

The above is a very telling remark, again confirming what has been shown on here over and over, which is that this is just a HATE SITE.

Parille says there isn't anything exciting going on in the Objectivist world. And an example of something "exciting" is that which would allow him and the other clowns on here to make fun of or ridicule Objectivism and talk crap about it like catty shrews. Which is a schism.

That is a very telling and damaging remark that Parille just admitted to.

He also admitted to something else that is quite interesting. Barnes claims Objectivism is stagnant and Strelnikov says it is running out of gas, but Parille just showed that is not the case.

Binswanger is out with a new book, Schwartz has one coming, and Gotthelf/Salmieri have a collection in the Blackwell series in philosophy on Rand, and an authorized bio by Knapp.

So when you have Objectivists being clean of any "schism" and getting along and being productive and producing new literature, the haters don't know about it, don't mention it and claim that Objectivism is running out of gas and is in a comatose state.

Instead of reporting/making a blog entry on Objectivists trying to expand the philosophy or give it greater explication like Binswanger has recently done, or all the things that Parille is mentioning which are intended to be beneficial to others, what does this sorry ass site report on??

A women's death, a person's remark about it, and the box office failures of movies and schisms.

Straight up a damn hate site. As I said for awhile. It's not even subtle really. Human beings are rarely ever clever enough to be subtle about their B.S. emotions and hatreds.

Why doesn't Greg's sorry butt attempt to trash Dr. George Reisman's fantastic contribution to human understanding called "A treatise on economics"? Since he's ran out of areas to trash.

This blog is of great value to help more people hate on Ayn Rand and Objectivism and trash a philosophy that has people who follow it that are peaceful and try to do productive work.

Trash Objectivism rather than a religion that inspires and encourages its adherents to ram planes into buildings and inspires its adherents to shoot girls in the head for wanting an education

Let me know when any of you lousy bozos(Jzero, Parille, Nyquist, Barnes, Burkowski) can name me a single Objectivist that has committed a crime of any note, or a crime at all. Because that is one of the best things Objectivism does. It encourages and espouses people to be peaceful and value life, since it holds life as the ultimate ethical standard and ultimate value.

Oh but lookie here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

Let me know if any of you hateful bastards can find that entry on Objectivist terrorism.

Won't be holding my breath.

John Halt said...

Daniel, when you wrote "never say never," I cheered.

I depend on this site to provide news of and commentary on the failures, schisms, inanities, and absurdities of the O-movement. I love reading about these things, I follow them closely, and I follow every link to every discussion of them. It's important -- I believe these people are intellectual frauds of the first order, who have done a great deal of damage to people's personal lives and even (indirectly) to public policy. If that makes me an angry hater, then damn straight I'm an angry hater "and make the most of it" as Rosenbaum herself might roar. :) Keep a hand in, my friend, will ya?

Daniel Barnes said...

Quan:
>You would have to show reality is not objective. You would have to show that reason is not a valid way to come by knowledge. You would have to show that existence does not exist. You would have to show that egoism is not a valid form of ethics. You would have to show that individual rights and capitalism are wrong.

Now this is a good example of why Objectivism is, at bottom, a kind of marketing gimmick rather than a coherent philosophy. All good marketing gimmicks require slogans, something their followers can chant and feel good about, even tho these slogans are a bit meaningless. Slogans are employed to create a sense of brand loyalty and differentiation, even if the product is actually basically the same as its competitors - Coke vs Pepsi. Rand, being a novelist, was far better at creating emotive slogans than coherent philosophical arguments, and her followers have become so well known for robotically repeating these slogans that they've even earned their own nickname: Randroids. What Quan has provided us above is a handy summary of Randroidism.

Like many marketing slogans, if you get past the catchy chants of Objectivism you will often find the product being sold is not that different from its competitors. For instance, how many philosophic schools maintain that existence doesn't exist? Answer: few or none. Even Platonic idealists have been known to accept this premise! As for reason being a "valid" way to come by knowledge, this runs head-on into the problem of induction, a problem Rand didn't even work on, let alone solve (and Peikoff Harriman's belated, embarrassing attempt is no more successful). So Randian doctrine has no advantage over any other philosophy in this issue, which of course doesn't stop Randroid fanboys chanting it. Objectivism, if it was a manufacturer using a slogan like this, would be sued for false advertising.

What about egoistic ethics? Well, Rand's version of it can easily be demolished, six ways to Sunday. Here's one here. And of course Randroids seem to think Objectivism has some kind of exclusive claim over capitalism and individual rights, a suggestion that's as ludicrous as if Coke were to claim it in its marketing that it exclusively owns caffeine or sugar.

So it's actually very easy to counter Objectivism's marketing slogans, as they are either false or vacuous, and only ignorant Randroids could believe they are teh most awesum philosophy eva.

Daniel Barnes said...

John Halt:
>I believe these people are intellectual frauds of the first order, who have done a great deal of damage to people's personal lives and even (indirectly) to public policy

Thanks for the note John. I agree - it's the fraudulent nature of Objectivism that gets me.

Of course, one of the things about Quan's bizarre attacks is that we should only go after Islam, or perhaps Christianity - leave Britney alooooonnnneee!..;-)

However all he does is pseudonymously attack an even smaller target - a small blog critical of Objectivism. What, exactly, are his own mighty exploits against the forces of Islam and Christianity is unclear. At any rate, he seems incapable of following his own advice. But then Randroids are not exactly known for their self-awareness...

Daniel Barnes said...

Actually after extensive detective work on the internets I have uncovered a video where Quan outlines his detailed, carefully considered philosophical case against the ARCHNblog:

Gordon Burkowski said...

"Let me know if any of you hateful bastards can find that entry on Objectivist terrorism."

Check out www.ariwatch.com - especially the section collecting ARI opinions on the issue of government institutionalized torture.

Neil Parille said...

Qaunt --

_____________________

Let me know when any of you lousy bozos(Jzero, Parille, Nyquist, Barnes, Burkowski) can name me a single Objectivist that has committed a crime of any note, or a crime at all. Because that is one of the best things Objectivism does. It encourages and espouses people to be peaceful and value life, since it holds life as the ultimate ethical standard and ultimate value.

Oh but lookie here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

Let me know if any of you hateful bastards can find that entry on Objectivist terrorism.

_____


Well, there was the Objecitvist guy who supposedly blew up a housing project because Roark would have done so. And there was the Objectivist psychiatrist Lonnie Leonard who abused patients.

Also, we have Objectivists such as Leonard Peikoff and Craig Biddle who call for the use of nuclear weapons against innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Biddle has even advocated the use of nukes against Moslem schools for children (although he later claimed that by Madrassahs he didn't mean schools).

Jzero said...

"No I don't think so you fool. Nice try. Even if what needed to be said had already been said every extra voice would count in denouncing and rebuking someone's bad behavior."

Funny, I don't remember much from you when Harry Binswager took a nasty shot at the news of Barbara Braden's death. I mean, that was classic schadenfreude right there, which seems to be high on your list of sins, and not a peep out of you.

And this is classic QuantumHaecceity: criticize someone mightily for their sins, but fail to live up to the very standards QH demands from others.

"Where is this "what needed to be said has already been said", when I'm having something said to me by Barnes, and your punk ass along with Burkowski pipe up with more insults and attack, and gleefully gang up with some self righteous snottery?"

You're confusing quantity with quality. I try to stay away from covering ground already being addressed by others. Just because someone is criticizing you on, say, some logical fallacy you've made doesn't mean I can't also criticize you for outright hypocrisy. The fact that there are multiple things you could be criticized for doesn't mean that everyone who does criticize you is dogpiling on the same thing.

"The above was just grade school crap. I know you are but what am I type of schtick. I said it first so you are saying it back to me like some 12 year old."

But the thing is, the criticism is valid when applied to YOU, since YOU are the one that makes the demands of others that they live up to a higher standard of behavior.

If you say that ARCHN and its followers are nasty and hateful and spiteful, and you come in and be just as nasty and hateful and spiteful - and don't pretend you aren't - then what value do your words have? If you can't bring yourself to live up to the standards you demand of ARCHN, why should ARCHN?

(This would also assume that your accusation is true, that ARCHN is just full of hate, and your word isn't exactly the highest of currencies. In truth, most of the hate in the ARCHN site comes from angry visiting Objectivists trying to teach everyone else a lesson.)

Jzero said...

Also, this whole "why not criticize Islam instead" schtick is classic misdirection. It's like saying "Why are you bothering poor Charles Manson when Hitler was much much worse??"

Anonymous said...

< @ Quark-sized intellect wrote: "That was an exceedingly nasty and vicious response from the Anonymous person given how nice and cordial Michael Stuart Kelly was."


Michael Stuart Kelly has never been nice, and the only meaning of "cordial" he grasps is the one that's distilled.

Michael Stuart Kelly, in fact, was being unctuous, not nice. He came to this site to brag about a character trait he doesn't have (i.e., sound character judgment), and to boast about a policy on his website he doesn't practice (i.e., tolerance toward critics of Objectivism).

Intellectually, Michael Stuart Kelly's a blank cartridge. Socially, he's a trousered ape. He is justly loathed by all freethinking netizens — especially those who have had the unpleasant experience of posting to his website.

He's a friend of yours? I'm not surprised.

Lloyd Flack said...

Aanonymous, since this time and previous times he was here he was civil I think we should be civil in return. I'm not interested in feuds carried over from nother sites.

Anonymous said...

< @ Lloyd Flack-Catcher wrote: "I'm not interested in feuds carried over from nother sites."

That's a darn shame. Unfortunately, you don't set policy here. Don't like what I post? Don't read it.

Jzero said...

"Unfortunately, you don't set policy here."

And neither do you. Really, at this point you're setting yourself up to be the reversed doppleganger of QuantumHaecceity, like from the alternate Star Trek universe where Spock wears a beard.

Do you WANT to be the anti-twin of QH? I don't think anyone wants that.

Daniel Barnes said...

Anon, I think if you have a beef with MSK, best to take it up with him over at his site.

Anonymous said...

< @ Jzero said...
"'Unfortunately, you don't set policy here.' And neither do you."

And, needless to say, neither do you. I guess you're still wearing your Captain Obvious costume from Halloween. Trick or treat, genius.

In any case, I wasn't "setting policy." Like the young naïf pointing out to the more obsequious onlookers that the Emperor has no clothes, I merely pointed out that Michael Stuart Kelly's boast of being a "good judge of character" was nothing but delusional narcissism on his part; and his brag of being open-minded to critics of Ayn Rand and philosophical challenges to Objectivism was something between an outright lie and outright denial; "bullshit" is the precise term.

You really can't distinguish between expressing an opinion and attempting to "set policy"? My turn to play Captain Obvious: you might not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Anonymous said...

< @ Daniel Barnes: "Anon, I think if you have a beef with MSK, best to take it up with him over at his site."

I have no beef with Michael Stuart Kelly. I merely speak Truth to Schmuckiness.

Lloyd Flack said...

Mate, you're doing that in your own mind. In everyone else here's mind you are indulging in narcissistic posing, bullshitting and spite. As has been pointed out you are behaving very much like QH. Pay attention to what he said as an example of what to avoid.

Jzero said...

"You really can't distinguish between expressing an opinion and attempting to "set policy"? My turn to play Captain Obvious: you might not be the sharpest tool in the shed."

Hey look, genius, YOU'RE the one who first played the "setting policy" card when someone expressed his opinion of your tirade.

Obviously you share that quality with QH: "It's bad when YOU do it but when I do it, it's righteous!" And the timing is right, I'd almost be willing to think you're some kind of sock-puppet of QH's, intended to expose the hypocrisy he was complaining about by pretending to be an anti-Objectivist jerk. Except I don't think QH could be that subtle.

Anonymous said...

< @ Lloyd Flack-catcher wrote: "In everyone else here's mind you are indulging in narcissistic posing, bullshitting and spite. As has been pointed out you are behaving very much like QH. Pay attention to what he said as an example of what to avoid."

You claim to speak for "everyone else"? Sounds like some down-under narcissistic posing on your part.

"Everyone else here's mind . . ." (???)

The grammatical confusion in your sentence construction reveals the logical confusion in your thought process — er, uh, I mean your psycho-epistemology.

Lloyd Flack said...

My,my,my!

I have been reading this blog and occasionally commenting on it for several years. I think I know how the authors and most of the commenters think. So yes I can make well informed guesses about what their opinions are likely to be on some subjects. Your behaviour is one of them.

So what are you and QH up to? My guess is that both of you love the feeling that indulging in self righteous anger and put downs gives. My evidence is the mocking tone of your comments, the derogatory way that refer to others and the way that you react when someone asks youn to be mor civil in how you refer to others.

Anonymous said...

< @ Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Lloyd Flack-Catcher wrote:

"My,my,my!

I have been reading this blog and occasionally commenting on it for several years. I think I know how the authors and most of the commenters think."

Yes, I've heard that often — but only from you. The point is whether all those authors and commenters you mentioned believe you know how they think, or whether your boast is simply a pretentious delusion of the Michael Stuart Kelly variety.

To assert that by dint of posting at this site for "several years" you therefore know how everyone else thinks ranks as one of the most arrogant and deliciously stupid statements I've read in a long time. Thank you for giving me a hearty laugh! And in any case, genius, if you already know how the commenters here think, what's the point in coming to this site to read their posts?

You're a mess.

Tell you what. Let's conduct a poll here to find out if the ARCHN regulars agree that you know how they think. After all, perhaps Greg Nyquist, Daniel Barnes, Neil Parille, Strelnikov, et al., will enthusiastically rush to your defense; e.g., "Yes! Lloyd Flack insightfully knows how we think, and predicts in advance what each of us will post. It's uncanny. In fact, most of us feel there's really no point in posting anything at all, since Lloyd intellectually leapfrogs over us with great agility, retorting to us in his usual urbane and witty manner, 'I knew you'd say that.'"

So let's start:

Who here agrees that Lloyd Flack knows how he thinks?

Lloyd Flack said...

Thank you for proving my point about your being into put downs and mockery.

Lloyd Flack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gordon Burkowski said...

@ Daniel Barnes:

After reading the last 20 posts, I am asking still more strongly:

Whither ARCHN?

Your answer above was: "My original vision for the blog, as stated way back when we started, was simply as a "low volume" site that can serve as a counter-archive for people who are questioning of Objectivism's doctrines."

That's laudable. And the archived posts are a great resource. Entertaining too.

But those posts were sustained by Greg's continuing analyses. In the absence of such analyses, what one is left with are postings by QH & Anon The Mystery Man - and occasional exasperated responses from others. Letting fly at these jerks can be fun for a while - but it's just not very sustaining.

I believe that a major rethink is in order.

Lloyd Flack said...

I think this sort of troll will go away once they realise that their atempts to upset people are getting them laughed at.
On another site there was a vitor who delivered denunciations with an obscenity in every third sentence. He was quite obviously expecting to shock an upset other posters. He had no success whatsoever and eventualy sulked away once he realized that everyone found his use of obscenity ridiculous.
Both QH and Anon are quite obviously trying to put down people. They give no substantial arguments, just abuse. They seem to be seeking an oportunity to indulge in self righteous anger and posing. Anon's reaction to calls for civility was rather revealing. Just let them know that you are on to them and regard them as bad jokes. And let them know that the more shrill denunciations that they utter the worse the joke.

Anonymous said...

< @ Flack-Catcher wrote: "I think this sort of troll will go away once they realise that their atempts to upset people are getting them laughed at."

*YOU* think? But in your last post, you bragged that you knew what *others* think! So tell us what others on this site think, O Great Nothingness. I'm still underwhelmed by the enthusiasm and alacrity with which these others — Nyquist, Barnes, Parille, et al. — have rushed to your defense.

Lloyd Flack said...

Ho hum!

Jzero said...

"I'm still underwhelmed by the enthusiasm and alacrity with which these others — Nyquist, Barnes, Parille, et al. — have rushed to your defense."

That's another QH obsession: being fascinated by group action, whether multiple people "defend" or "gang up" on other commentators.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@John halt

"I believe these people are intellectual frauds of the first order"

I don't want to respond to all your abuse and attacks against Objectivists, but it would be interesting to see you back up your hate by showing how:

Dr. Diana Hsieh, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. George Reisman, Dr. Tara Smith, Dr. Andrew Bernstein, Dr. Onkar Ghate, Dr. David Kelley, Dr. Harry Binswanger, Dr.John Ridpath and Dr. Yaron Brook are intellectual frauds, and even more, intellectual frauds of the first order.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barney

"Now this is a good example of why Objectivism is, at bottom, a kind of marketing gimmick rather than a coherent philosophy."


This sentence, and the entire post it was embedded in was basically nothing but bluster and bluff backed by insult. Although you did lazily link to an attack against Objectivsm from this site.

Those are the principles of Objectivism that you would need to refute in order to say it is defeated. That is not a marketing gimmick, that is a fact of reality.

It was quite clever of you to try to get out of doing the work necessary to refute those principles, and instead fall back on the bluff that all of that is just a marketing gimmick. Which of course is lazy trash, and backed my insult of course, with the Randroid thing.

Oh the irony of it all.


"As for reason being a "valid" way to come by knowledge, this runs head-on into the problem of induction"

No it doesnt. If it does, explain rather than using bluff backed by insult. Are you really so irrational, you are suggesting that we come to knowledge and truth by way of irrationality or nonreason?


"And of course Randroids seem to think Objectivism has some kind of exclusive claim over capitalism and individual rights,"

The above was trash, since I never said anything of the kind.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Parille

"Well, there was the Objecitvist guy who supposedly blew up a housing project because Roark would have done so."

The word supposedly means it's not being presented as a fact, but is a speculation or something that could be true. If you can provide the name and external sources confirming, we can get somewhere on that.

"Also, we have Objectivists such as Leonard Peikoff and Craig Biddle who call for the use of nuclear weapons against innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia and Iran."

This is supposedly answered here:

http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/11514/is-peikoffs-position-on-collateral-damage-in-war-compatible-with-objectivism


"Also, we have Objectivists such as Leonard Peikoff and Craig Biddle who call for the use of nuclear weapons against innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia and Iran."

Also, if that is bad, then how horrible is what America did to the Japanese in World War II?


So if that's it, then that is absolutely amazing. All you managed to provide for Objectivist crimes of note or crimes at all, is one person, from, if I'm not mistaken, the 1970's.

So if that is correct and indeed all you have. Then this means Objectivists have produced one criminal since its instantiation in 1958!! And have not had any Objectivist commit any violence or crimes of any note, possibly even no crimes at all in 34 years.

If that is the case, this is why this website is so bad and so infuriating. Instead of attacking or going after worldviews that are believed in by way more people, and have done so much harm to the world like Christianity and Islam, you are attacking a philosophy that not only is a philosophy of peace, but one that even has its adherents, if that is all you have, being so peaceful, only one Objectivst criminal can be named in over half a century.

If that is indeed the case,that there is only the Lonnie Leonard crime(s), then that is an amazing record of peace and peaceful behavior from Objectivists over a long period of time

This is understandable since it is a philosophy of peace that espouses that life is the ultimate standard and that life should be ones ultimate value and that we should relate to others in a fashion of harmony and mutual benefit, and espouses that people have individual rights.

Such a great philosophy as that does not deserve a blog like this spewing such hate and invective at it, and doing so for years and years.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Jzero

"and not a peep out of you."

Well, if you weren't so ignorant and pathetic you would remember that I did rebuke and take Dr. Binswanger to task, since I said this:

"Let me go on record in saying Binswanger should not have done that and he acted poorly and with no tact."

Unlike you Jzero, I'm not a biased sychophant, and will call a spade a spade. You are governed by emotions and animalistic tendencies, based on what I've seen from you.


"Why are you bothering poor Charles Manson when Hitler was much much worse"

The above is false since it begs the question in assuming the philosophy of Objectivism is evil, since both Manson and Hitler were evil, and I'd say Islam is evil, so your comparison doesn't work unless you prove that Objectivsm is an evil philosophy.

Try dwelling on substance for a change rather than your usual whiny, self righteous mess and personal attacks.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Lloyd Flack

"Both QH and Anon are quite obviously trying to put down people"

Not really. I initially made observations about the bad behavior of Nyquist and most recently Daniel Barnes, via their blog postings.

Barnes piped up and started talking mess, so we got into it. If Barney didn't say anything after my initial post, I would have left it at that like I think I did the last time I took these people to task for childish gossiping, insults and schadenfreude.

I'm not sure what crack you're on trying to paint these people as saints when this whole site, for years is filled with them putting people in Objectivism and Objectivism itself, down.

Are you seriously trying to paint these people as saints/heroes, while me and this anon fool are the villains? Like really dude? I can't see any valid grounds for such other than bias on your part, given the abuse that Barnes, Nyquist, Jzero and Burkowski spew.

Come on now.


"They give no substantial arguments, just abuse"

Yeah, you're wrong here as well. I did give substance filled argument at first, like with the psychological issue of innate knowledge and such. But when I found out this was a hate site, I shifted to criticism.

Also, I have tried to deal with substance rather than this worthless personal junk. I asked Barnes to explicate in summary what he thinks shows each part of Objectivism is fatally flawed. He refused to engage. I asked him to go over to Objectivist Answers and give his best arguments for why Objectivism is wrong. He refused.

I told him what he needed to refute to show Objectivsm is defeated, as an opener for him to hold forth philosophically on that and I can take it on. He replied with pathetic bluff and bluster backed by insult with some silly mess about how that shows Objectivism is a marketing gimmick.

So I've done more than my part to shift this to a more productive and substantive exchange. Barnes refused on all counts.

And he just got through spewing abuse with the Randroid thing, so your remarkable attempt to try to paint this fools as the saints, is an amazing sight to behold.

A testament to human bias and foolishness.

Daniel Barnes said...

QH:
>It was quite clever of you to try to get out of doing the work necessary to refute those principles…

Actually, I gutted your "principles" - actually just empty talking points which you mouth, but don't understand yourself - like a fish in a couple of sentences. This is why I consider you to be a Randroid - you don't even grok the philosophy you espouse.

For example:
>No it doesnt. If it does, explain rather than using bluff backed by insult.

So I now have to explain the problem of induction to you, and Objectivism's position on it. Why should I do that? This is like you being clueless about things like Galt's speech. Please. Why don't you just go study Objectivism till you have a clue, rather than just rely on me to explain it to you?

This is boring now. When you come back with some evidence that you actually have got beyond the Randroid phase, where you can demonstrate you actually understand the philosophical issues involved instead of just chanting slogans you've picked up without thinking about, then I might be interested in responding to you further. Maybe when you can demonstrate you understand issues like the problem of induction at a better than a gee-whiz-I-just-went-to-Wikipedia level, or even demonstrate some understanding of Objectivism (!). But till then I don't see why I should provide you with endless free lessons in philosophy in general and Objectivism in particular.

Trader principle: I can see what's in it for you, but what's in if for me. So if you want me to respond further, earn it. Till then, you're boring me.



Daniel Barnes said...

@Gordon:
>I believe that a major rethink is in order.

What do you have in mind?

Lloyd Flack said...

QH, the continual use of belttling names by you and Anonymous gives the lie to any claim that either of you is trying to engage in reasoned debate.

Lloyd Flack said...

QH, Greg and Daniel have posted scores of articles here challenging all aspects of Objectivism. Read them and try to understand if you want to see possible problems with Objectivism. Don' ask forrepetitions in comments of what has been dealt with at length in the articles.

And if you want to actually understand Objectivism read Rand's fiction. Her essays don't convey her actual mind set and attitudes.

QuantumHaecceity said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
QuantumHaecceity said...

"This is boring now."

Sounds good to me. You're not doing anything worthwhile, and in my view you're just embarrassing yourself with the lying you've done, schadenfreude, catty gossiping, and insults like Randroid.



"So I now have to explain the problem of induction to you, and Objectivism's position on it"


No, I clearly explained what you needed to explicate. Not what the problem of induction is, or Objectivism's position on it, but if you are really suggesting that we come to knowledge and truth by way of irrationality or nonreason?

This is again you being dishonest and assuming something your opponent did not say, like earlier when you said this:

"And of course Randroids seem to think Objectivism has some kind of exclusive claim over capitalism and individual rights"

When I never said anything about Objectivism has an exclusive claim over capitalism and individual rights.

This is why you're a clown.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Lloyd Flack

"QH, the continual use of belttling names by you and Anonymous gives the lie to any claim that either of you is trying to engage in reasoned debate."


And the continual hypocritical and unjust ignoring of their bad behavior and belittling on your part, gives the lie to your feigned attempt at coming off as impartial or objective.

Your behavior is one of clear bias in their favor, and frankly is to the point of being animalistic, similar to Jzero.

You are behaving just like Jzero. Which is hypocrisy, sycophancy, and passive aggressive abuse baptized in a shell of whining and phony self-righteousness.

You don't even need to say anything really. You're just piping in with personal attacks you're trying to pass off as self-righteous indignation when at first no one was even talking to you. So essentially, you're just ganging up. Which is the type of animal behavior that exhibits why it takes courage and strength to battle on enemy territory. Because humans, when they are in the majority, will tend to display tribal behavior and gang up like a pack of hyenas. Since humans, especially when they are in the majority or feel threatened, tend not to give a flying wick about justice or fairness. They will tend to revert to their usual animal behavior of selfishness, ape like emotions, tribal bias and a "might makes right" attitude. And of course, there is great might in numbers.

I mean dude, Barnes just used the word Randroid six times recently. I repeat, six times. That word is supposed to be insulting and belittling. Yet not a peep out of you in castigation or rebuke as far as I know, which is not only hypocrisy on your part, but puts the lie to your attempt to paint these people as the heroes and saints. This site has years of abuse and attack against Objectivists and Objectivism. So your remarkable attempt to caste a narrative of saints vs villains is hilariously misguided and a complete joke.



"Don' ask forrepetitions in comments of what has been dealt with at length in the articles."

I've read many, many articles on here. My assessment is that the articles are low grade criticism that miss the mark on refuting what it is trying to refute. It comes off to me as a whole lot of words that don't really say anything. Hot air basically.

Also, it's much easier to engage with them one on one, rather than through an article, getting their objections in their own words and dealing with it in real time, or perhaps quasi real time. It's much easier to provide summaries or get their best objections summed up, rather than wade through all the years and years of attacks on here.

Which one to even start with, given how many attacks Nyquist has done against OBjectivism? Wouldn't know where to start. So it would be better to get a summary or tight explication of what they have on refuting the fundamentals of Objectivism, so I can engage it. If they can take out the fundamentals, there would be no need to wade through all the rest of the peripheral crap on here like empirical responsibility, Rand's gas chamber, Building tomorrows Randroids, and Objectivism and Religion.

Easier than say, wasting time with silly junk like attacks against Objectivism's theory of history. Which I'm pretty sure Objetivism doesnt even have a theory of history.


"And if you want to actually understand Objectivism read Rand's fiction."

Actually, to me this is a bad way to understand Objectivism. Fiction is not a sober, robust, adult level expositor of Philosophy. It will almost certainly not be giving a rigorous explication. One should go to the non-fictional literature.

That is probably why there is so much misunderstand on Objectivsm from Objectivisms many enemies, and why people claim many Objectivists can't defend the philosophy when challenged. They are getting their education on it from fiction. Which is somewhat silly, since it lacks academic level rigor, though it is a great way to inspire people to believe in it.

Lloyd Flack said...

So why are you using belittling names when you are conversing with people here? And if you use them other than perhaps as an expression of exasperation why should anyone on the receiving end believe that you are arguing in good faith?

Lloyd Flack said...

And this blog is about discussing ideas not about confrontations. So what is the point of going over to objectivist sites and getting into arguments there? To show how tough they are? Or what? What is the point of getting into arguments with people that you believe to be willfully blind?

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Lloyd Flack

"So why are you using belittling names when you are conversing with people here?"


Because they used it first. Either to me or this site itself. Note the six Randroid insults from Barney.

I'm against initiation of force or aggression, but I'm damn sure in favor of retaliation.

A person has every right to defend themselves -in kind-.

And again you are displaying hypocrisy. Because you are harping on me, and not at all on "them".

That is animalistic. I.E. tribal like, hyena pack behavior.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Lloyd Flack

"And this blog is about discussing ideas not about confrontations."

Yeah, this site is surely not about confrontation:

1. A Randroid Review

2. The Objectivist Party vs "Toxic Randroid Cultists"

3. Are You A Rand Cultist? Take Our Simple Test.

4. Building Tomorrow's Randroids

5. The Virtue of Sycophancy

6. The McCaskey Objectischism

7. The Ayn Rand Institute's War Against Reality

8. Ayn Rand's Originality Part 2: Social and Political Philosophy

And that type of disparagement and attack goes on and on for years.
and years.

In answer to your foolishness, please watch this video Lloyd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHHRDxjw7hE

Jzero said...

"Well, if you weren't so ignorant and pathetic you would remember that I did rebuke and take Dr. Binswanger to task, since I said this:

"Let me go on record in saying Binswanger should not have done that and he acted poorly and with no tact.""

Oh, wow! That's some SCATHING disapproval right there. You're willing to burn acres of this forum's pixel space to castigate people here for "schadenfreude", but a little toss-off line is equivalent and equal time when an Objectivist does the same.

And that's the problem: you don't really look for fair play, you just use it as a rationale, and you don't actually live up to the standards you demand of others. Did you directly confront Binswager about his schadenfreude? I would wager not. And if you did, I bet it was in the same listless manner as quoted above. This is the same kind of hypocrisy you're accusing people of on this forum, but no doubt you have some kind of contorted rationale how it's not actually hypocrisy when YOU do it.


"The above is false since it begs the question in assuming the philosophy of Objectivism is evil, since both Manson and Hitler were evil, and I'd say Islam is evil, so your comparison doesn't work unless you prove that Objectivsm is an evil philosophy."

Do you even know what "begs the question" means? Because you do it right there.

My line did NOT assume that Objectivism was evil. But it does put forth the idea that you are trying to deflect criticism away from its faults by complaining that we aren't going after something that has supposedly larger faults.

But, fine then. By your logic, Objectivists should shut up about income taxes until the problem of various wars and strife on the planet get solved, since direct bodily harm and death would seem to be a more pressing problem than getting a small percentage of your income siphoned away involuntarily. But I bet you/they won't. In fact, until you solve war, you ought to shut up about schadenfreude altogether, since that's a tiny sin by comparison. But I bet you won't. Once again, you won't live up to a standard you demand of others. So we certainly can't look to you as an example of how a superior intellect would conduct themselves. And so then what do you have to offer, but bile? And can you reasonably expect your bile to convince others, or even impress anyone (besides yourself, of course)?

Nobody here takes you seriously. I'm even kind of rolling my eyes at myself for stringing out the discussion as long as I have, since it's evident you're either being deliberately obtuse, OR you're genuinely that clueless, and either way, there's rapidly becoming less and less reason to engage with you, while pretending as if you were at all rational and open to reason.

Gordon Burkowski said...

@Daniel:

In response to my suggestion that a major rethink about ARCHN is in order, you asked (logically): "What do you have in mind?"

This is a question that you and Greg need to answer for yourself. I think that at a minimum there needs to be a new post every month on an intellectually distinct topic from the month before.

You're in serious need of that kind of structure: a monthly point of discussion that people can work with if they so desire.
In the absence of such structure, you’re left with a forum for people like QH to spew abuse. People rebut his nonsense, but nothing else happens – because the site is not giving anyone anything else to talk about.

As you correctly noted in your last post, this starts to get really boring. You have to fix it.

Lloyd Flack said...

This site had an objective. That was to do a thorough critique of Rand's philosophy. That has been accomplished. Frequent future posts are pointless. There is after all only so much objectivism to discuss.

There will still be Objectivism related topics that pop up now and then. But they will not be frequent at all.

So the problem is how to stop it bein a site which attracts pointles argments. Consider shutting down comments except for short periods after new posts. Not something that I would prefer but it should be considered. We're not getting discussions about the issues now, just arguments. Still I don't like this idea. Can someone come up with a better one?

Gordon Burkowski said...

"So the problem is how to stop it being a site which attracts pointless arguments."

Agreed - although shutting down a waste of space like QH is unpleasantly reminiscent of the policy at some Objectivist sites.

I'm not suggesting that my own suggestion is the best by any means. But the reality is that right now ARCHN seems to be spinning its wheels.

Dragonfly said...

Objectivism is a very dead horse. This site already contains many good articles and comments refuting all the false claims, but the problem is that searching for specific content is quite awkward.

For starters, I'd suggest that Greg's articles are bundled together in a single file for easy access, that should be fairly easy to realize..

Dragonfly said...

The biggest problem with trolls is that they often flood the site with their abusive comments, so that real discussions get lost in the mess. Perhaps a remedy might be a limit of posts and bytes per day per article, so that less space is wasted, without censoring adverse comments.

Gordon Burkowski said...

@Dragonfly:

Agreed. There was a good series on Rand's theory of literature - but I'm damned if I can find them.

Lloyd Flack said...

An index with links to topics would be the best addition to the site. Something to make finding material on a topic easier.

Daniel Barnes said...

Thanks for your comments.

I agree - from my point of view I see the job is primarily archival.

Greg may disagree, but there is not much to sustain interest in the philosophy currently. Hence, not much to sustain interest in a site critiquing the philosophy.

And Quan is roughly representative of the quality of discourse you get from Objectivism - someone who thinks he has mastered the problems of the ages because he has read a website somewhere and learned to repeat some slogans. Not much incentive for us who've taken the trouble to study Objectivism in depth to engage with such folk, although we do make some efforts obviously as we did with Quan at first.

Of course organising archives takes some time and effort, and that has been in short supply in recent years at least from my end. Life is more important than Ayn Rand's peculiar beliefs, interesting as they might be from time to time…;-) And certainly the site has grown far more than I at least anticipated. So it will be something that will get chipped away at I would think. Of course all offers of help will be gratefully accepted.

Anonymous said...

< @ jzero asserted: "That's another QH obsession: being fascinated by group action, whether multiple people "defend" or "gang up" on other commentators."

Congrats, Flack-Catcher! You've got one poster who supports your earlier preposterous claim to know what authors and commenters at this site think; but of course, the "zero" in his or her name is a dead giveaway as to cognitive content, so maybe it wasn't so hard to guess at it, after all.

And just to belabor the obvious (especially for those with "zero" in their name), Flack-Catcher expressed fascination with "group action" when he asserted that collectively, the minds of commenters here are an open, first-grade primer to him, easily read, and more easily understood. I was merely holding him to it.

A quick question:

Is "zero" your Christian name? Or your surname? I don't have Flack-Catcher's mind-reading talent, so I have to ask explicitly. Do tell.

Anonymous said...

< Quantas wrote: Dr. Diana Hsieh, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. George Reisman, Dr. Tara Smith, Dr. Andrew Bernstein, Dr. Onkar Ghate, Dr. David Kelley, Dr. Harry Binswanger, Dr.John Ridpath and Dr. Yaron Brook are intellectual frauds, and even more, intellectual frauds of the first order.

You think that just because they have "Dr." before their names, they're first-rate intellectuals?

Duh.

Hsieh has written some incredibly stupid things on her site, especially regarding "rationality", not to mention aesthetics.

Peikoff hasn't contributed anything of worth to philosophy, let alone anything else. Pick a topic, any topic. Make it something easy like induction, if you wish.

Reisman's only contribution to economics has been a continuation (a very able continuation, I'd like to add) of a branch of economic analysis called "comparative statics", which was the sort of thing Henry Hazlitt was quite good at, too. But economic *theory*? He hasn't contributed a thing; and, in fact, his pandect "Capitalism" is an unfortunate throwback to pre-Austrian, pre-subjectivist economic thinking, especially in its abandoning Menger's theory of imputation in favor of the long-exploded Ricardian model of prices ultimately being determined by costs of production. Reisman also makes no mention of the important Misesian concept of "entrepreneurial innovation" as the ultimate driver of economic activity, or the important Hayekian concept of "information" as the basic function of prices. Unlike Mises and Hayek, Reisman does not distinguish between "entrepreneurial profit" and "originary interest", nor does he discuss the important idea of "Knightian uncertainty". Reisman's tome was thoroughly and fairly criticized by economist Israel Kirzner (also a Mises student and a contemporary of Reisman's at NYU in the 1950s). Reisman refers to himself as an "Austro-Classical" economist; meaning, his basic position is classical (i.e., in accord with Smith, Ricardo, and Mill)with certain ideas from the Austrian school brought in as "refinements." Reisman's no fraud, but he's no great intellectual innovator, either.

Binzwanger is simply a fool, somewhat on intellectual par with Hsieh.

And Kelley?

Good grief. You ARE easily impressed.

Anonymous said...

"Report on a Treatise"
http://www.gmu.edu/depts/rae/archives/VOL12_1_1999/kirzner.pdf

Above see Israel Kirzner's review of George Reisman's economics treatise, "Capitalism."

Jzero said...

"Is "zero" your Christian name? Or your surname? I don't have Flack-Catcher's mind-reading talent, so I have to ask explicitly. Do tell."

You make the mistake of assuming that "Jzero" is an initial plus the word zero. It is all one word.

Boy, you have QH's verbal style down, too. I may have to reconsider my earlier opinion that you two are not the same person playing two sides of a dumb rhetorical dick-swinging contest.

Lloyd Flack said...

Oh dear! Please be careful. With the amount of froth and spittle that you are generating you run a risk of dehydration. Drink plenty of water.

Lloyd Flack said...

And seriously get some help. You reacted with anger when I suggested that civil behaviour was wantede here. It was a quite disproportionate response.
So what was behind it. I've been assuming that you were the usual sort of troll who gets off on putting people down and upseting them. I still think this is probably the case.
Alternatively you might be a narcissist, incapable admitting he might be wrong
Or you might have a more serious psychological problem. Get some professional help, and I'm not joking or mocking or setting you up when I say that.
Everyone, do your best to ignore him, whether he is the troll he seems to be or whether he has issues.

Jzero said...

"Because they used it first. Either to me or this site itself."

While I'm at it, let's go ahead and debunk this thing too. Because the first time any of us heard of QH was when he came in and started the first of his many posts chiding ARCHN and its authors for criticizing Objectivism, singling out Barnes and Nyquist for their sins, using insulting terms, and referring to them with condescending diminutives such as "Greggy" and "Barnesy".

So if we are to take QH at his word that he doesn't start things, but only "retaliates", then we have to ask WHAT he was retaliating against, since he was being obnoxious from his first post. Surely nobody on ARCHN attacked QH in any way BEFORE he appeared - unless he is in fact one of ARCHN's previous antagonists, returned under a different alias.

In that case, he might be able to claim retaliation, though it would be disingenuous to some extent to do so but not be upfront about what and to whom the offense first occurred. But let's assume for the moment he isn't a repeat of some earlier foe.

Then we have to ask again what triggered him. ARCHN criticizes Objectivism, and Objectivists - that's what it does, not much else - and so to claim retaliation, QH must then either claim that such an attack is indeed an attack on him, personally, OR admit that he is in fact leaping to the defense of Objectivism or Objectivists, and retaliating on their behalf.

Since QH has denied being an Objectivist, that makes it a bit difficult to claim a personal attack, and that would render his justification void. It would be himself who was the instigator of conflict, and by his logic, everything that followed from others that was negative against him would be a justifiable retaliation.

That leaves the notion that QH is "white knighting" on behalf of Objectivism, that he feels authorized to "retaliate" for things said about Objectivism. But if that's so, does not anyone else have the right to retaliate against Objectivism for the disparaging judgements it makes on other people?

In the end, it becomes obvious that this is another hollow justification for QH to rationalize his own actions as somehow just, while taking people to task for supposedly doing the same thing. There is no way his claim can actually come out in his favor.

Lloyd Flack said...

QH is like Ungtss, someone who has read Objectivist material but has apparently misinterpreted it and is defending his idea of what it is. A say apparently for QH because he has been evasive about where he differes from orthodox objectivism. Actually often Ungtss' missinterpretation of Objectivism was something more reasonable and realistic than Objectivism.
But at least Ungtss was not evasive about what his opinions were and never pretended to be an orthodox objectivist. QH has been quite evasive about where he differs from orthodox objectivism. One area where there is an obvious difference is his admitting to having never read Rand's fiction, and not having any idea of how important it was to her and to her philosophy. Her essays are not enough to understand her. I think he does not understand her sheer romanticism.
But in any case he is still misrepresenting the positions of Rand's critics.

Anonymous said...

< @ Jzero wrote: "You make the mistake of assuming that "Jzero" is an initial plus the word zero. It is all one word."

So you incorporate zero into your name in a holistic sense. "Zero" is simply part of your gestalt, part of your essence, without being separable from it. Got it.

That explains a lot.

"I may have to reconsider my earlier opinion that you two are not the same person playing two sides of a dumb rhetorical dick-swinging contest."

Who cares about your opinions?

And at least my swinging dick is where it should be — between my legs — as opposed to your swinging dick — which sits atop your shoulders. It speaks? Amazing.

Anonymous said...

< @ Flack-Catcher: "Drink plenty of water."

Will do. And you should cut back on that 110-proof bathtub moonshine you've been gulping. Dehydration's the least of it — the stuff is murder on the few brain cells you might've started out with.

Jzero said...

"So you incorporate zero into your name in a holistic sense."

Wrong again.

Lloyd Flack said...

Don't drink overproof spirits. I find the taste, aroma and mouth feel unballanced.

When I drink spirits which is not often it's usually good Scotch and Irish whiskies, French branies and Caribbean or Latin American rums. The sort of stuff that's meant for leisurely sipping.

But now about you. You popped up to make an attack on another visitor to the site but you never said where you were coming from. Are you a member of another objectivist faction or are you an opponent of objectivism?

And a name for you would be a good idea.

Anonymous said...

< @ Flack wrote: "And a name for you would be a good idea."

I was born Anonymous Mendelschneum, but I thought it sounded — you know — a little *too* Jewish, so I legally changed it to Anonymous Smith.

But we needn't be formal here. Just call me "Anonymous."

Gadfly said...

To judge from your posts, I think it more likely than you were born Anonymous Shmuck.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Dragonfly

"Objectivism is a very dead horse."

Not even close, as Neil Parille himself has shown.


QuantumHaecceity said...

@Gordon

"I'm not suggesting that my own suggestion is the best by any means. But the reality is that right now ARCHN seems to be spinning its wheels."

Spinning its wheels? I don't understand why the realization is simply that Greg has already done all he could to trash Objectivism, has trashed pretty much everything about it, and therefore it's over and done with, and you and the other haters simply move on to something else?

How long was Greg supposed to attack and disparage Objectivsm?

He already was at it for 9 years.

What was he supposed to do, keep up the abuse for 15 years?

Gordon, you just have to find something new to hate on, that's all.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Gordon

"People rebut his nonsense, but nothing else happens"


What nonsense have "people" rebutted?

I see I pointed out Daniel Barnes's pathetic behavior, he piped up, and we've been going at it, and others joined in unnecessarily cause that's what humans tend to do, from an animalistic standpoint.

When I tried to steer the dialogue to more substantive vistas like three or four times, Barnes has refused.

So what nonsense of mine has been rebutted?

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Flack

"But in any case he is still misrepresenting the positions of Rand's critics."

What are the examples for this? I have no idea what this is even referring to.

It's just put out there as a bare assertion and disparagement without the slightest bit of substantiation.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Anonymous

"Hsieh has written some incredibly stupid things on her site, especially regarding "rationality", not to mention aesthetics"

What is the substantiation for this beyond simply your question begging disparagement?

Give what she specifically said about rationality and aesthetics and explain why it's incredibly stupid. So as to prove what you say.



"Binzwanger is simply a fool, somewhat on intellectual par with Hsieh."

Why is he a fool? What is the reasoning, besides your simple disparagement?



"Peikoff hasn't contributed anything of worth to philosophy, let alone anything else"


How is writing the Ominous parallels, Teaching Johnny to Think, Objective Communication: Writing, Speaking and Arguing, and writing the The DIM Hypothesis, not contributing anything to philosophy let alone anything else?

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barnes

"someone who thinks he has mastered the problems of the ages because he has read a website somewhere and learned to repeat some slogans."


I think this is like the fourth or fifth time you have dishonestly misrepresented.

I said nothing about mastering the problems of the ages, nothing about reading some website somewhere, and the slogan thing has already been pointed out as trash.

Hmmm. Not good. And me saying that to the left, is me trying not to insult you viciously since your behavior is pathetic and very contemptible.

Lloyd Flack said...

"You would have to show reality is not objective. You would have to show that reason is not a valid way to come by knowledge. You would have to show that existence does not exist."

To ascribe any of these to Rand's critics or to anyone here is to misrepresent them. Making any of these misattributions is not an innocent mistake in your case. It is not a mistake that could be made by anyone diligently trying to understand an opponent's point of view. They are the mistakes of someone reading maliciously, someone reading to find something that they can seize on to condemn.

And when Daniel showed what he had posted over a long time on objectivist forums you did not have the guts or the grace or the decency to apologize. Rather you doubled down, the act of someone who does not have the intellectual integrity do admit that they were wrong.

Dragonfly said...

@Lloyd Flack: thinking of Hanlon's razor, I suspect that it is rather a question of lack of intelligence than of malice. He apparently doesn't realize the elementary logical error in his argument, which any intelligent person immediately can see.

QuantumHaecceity said...

part 1 @Jzero

"Oh, wow! That's some SCATHING disapproval right there."

Actually, to say someone acted poorly and with no tack is pretty scathing, especially if you like them, and I have a good amount of respect for Dr. Binswanger.




"You're willing to burn acres of this forum's pixel space to castigate people here for "schadenfreude"


That's because Barney decided to pipe up and talk crap, so we went at it. I don't have the ability to deal with Dr. Binswanger directly and one-on-one.


"And that's the problem: you don't really look for fair play, you just use it as a rationale, and you don't actually live up to the standards you demand of others."

Actually I do. If I didn't live up to the standards I demand of others, I wouldn't have rebuked Dr. Binswanger for what he did.

Like I've castigated you for being so animalistic and biased, since you have not criticized Barnes and Nyquist for their bad behavior. Not once from what I've seen at least.


"This is the same kind of hypocrisy you're accusing people of on this forum, but no doubt you have some kind of contorted rationale how it's not actually hypocrisy when YOU do it."


It would be hypocrisy if I didn't say anything against him.

Notice the type of bad person you are, that when you are shown to be completely wrong on something, since you claimed there was not a peep out of me, you don't apologize, or show any contrition. You simply double down and continue with the petty personal attacks and move on like nothing happened.

This also completely supports my assessment of you as animalistc, biased, and sycophantic since I am willing to rebuke and criticize people I favor when they deserve it.

But as far as I know, you have yet to say a single thing negative about Barnes or Nyquist despite all their bad behavior.


"My line did NOT assume that Objectivism was evil."

Then your analogy or comparison didn't make sense. Since you used evil "placeholders" like Manson and Hitler. Whereby Hitler is a greater evil than Manson, so the comparison or analogy is logically that Islam is a greater evil than Objectivism.


"Nobody here takes you seriously."

Then shut the hell up. I and the dialogue, can certainty do without your whining and self-righteous trash. We've already been over this.


"I'm even kind of rolling my eyes at myself for stringing out the discussion as long as I have, since it's evident you're either being deliberately obtuse"

Then shut the hell up. No one was talking to you in the first place. This was between me and Barnes to begin with.


"Because the first time any of us heard of QH was when he came in and started the first of his many posts chiding ARCHN and its authors for criticizing Objectivism"


The above, if I remember correctly, is false. At first it started out civilly, as I was telling them I'm an expert on Objectivism and they can run any problems they have on Objectivm by me and I will try to respond in real time. I was presented with the innate knowledge situation and answered. As time went on I realized this was a hate site and I shifted to rebuke.



"since he was being obnoxious from his first post"

As far as I remember, this looks to be false, unless you can show otherwise. Find my first post, and quote me.

QuantumHaecceity said...

Part 2 @Jzero

"then we have to ask WHAT he was retaliating against"

The site is belittling/abusive towards Rand, Objectivists, and Objectivsm.


"Then we have to ask again what triggered him. ARCHN criticizes Objectivism, and Objectivists - that's what it does, not much else"

The above is ridiculously naive to the point of being deliberately obtuse or amazngly biased. This site is very hateful and disparaging of Rand, Objectivism and Objectivists.


"OR admit that he is in fact leaping to the defense of Objectivism or Objectivists, and retaliating on their behalf."

This. Which I think I've already admitted to before. Then on top of that, I've been insulted many, many times by now.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Flack

"To ascribe any of these to Rand's critics or to anyone here is to misrepresent them."

Your thinking is confused. I didn't ascribe that to Rand's critics. I simply told them that is what they would have to do to refute Objectivism.

To misrepresent a position of a critic of Rand, I would need to do something like say a person is a moral realist, when they are perhaps actually a moral nihilist. Since that would be a position that is thus being misrepresented.

Your thinking is confused.


"And when Daniel showed what he had posted over a long time on objectivist forums you did not have the guts or the grace or the decency to apologize"

I didn't need to. If you knew what you were talking about, instead of butting your nose into business that has nothing to do with you, you would know, as far as I can recall, I didn't conclusively say Barnes has never gone on enemy territory. I instead simply said I don't have verification of that to hand. And since he is a liar, he is not to be trusted on his claim that he did.


When Daniel Barnes claimed I was an Objectivist, when I had already said awhile ago I was not, he did not have the guts or the grace or the decency to apologize.

When he insisted on dishonestly calling me an Objectivist after that and had to be corrected on his dishonesty, he did not have the guts or the grace or the decency to apologize.

When Daniel Barnes dishonestly claimed I tried to refer questioners back to other people at the Objectivist Answers site, rather than answer himself, and was corrected on that not being true, and that such was a mistake, he did not have the guts or the grace or the decency to apologize.

When Daniel Barnes lied and claimed that according to me, for some reason people should really say nothing but nice things about crappily made financial failures, and this was pointed out to him that such a claim was a lie, he did not have the guts or the grace or the decency to apologize. He's doubled down everytime in more abuse and foolishness.

When Jzero made a mistake and screwed up and claimed there was not a peep of me when Binswanger took a nasty shot at the news of Barbara Braden's death, he did not have the guts or the grace or the decency to apologize for his blunder.

Rather, Jzero doubled down; the act of someone who does not have the intellectual integrity to admit that they were wrong.

Lloyd Flack said...

You have claimed that you are not an objectivist but when aske where you differ from objectivists you have never explained. You have been asked to do this many times and have not done so. So many times that people have come to see your lack of reply as an evasion. Add to this that you have never shown any disagreement with objectivist doctrine that I or anyone else her can see and people have quite reasonably become sceptical of your claims. So once again where do you differ from objectivists?

If you think that people have to do what you claim is required to prove objectivism wrong then you have not been paying attention to the arguments presented on this blog. Quite simply what you claim is preposterous.

Now the question is why are you defending objectivism? What does it offer you? Why do you want to believe that Rand was right?

Jzero said...

"Actually, to say someone acted poorly and with no tack is pretty scathing, especially if you like them, and I have a good amount of respect for Dr. Binswanger."

No, not really. I mean, it's probable that you think so, the way you overreact to trivialities, but your so-called criticism of Binswager was lukewarm at best. At least, you did not react with the same ferocity as you did for anyone here, and why? Because you respect Binswager? So isn't that the exact kind of "animalism" and favoritism you're accusing the rest of us of? If I said I respect Barnes, would that make my lack of real criticism more palatable to you? Of course not, so why should I take that as a suitable rationale from you in return?

" I don't have the ability to deal with Dr. Binswanger directly and one-on-one."

Oh, sure you do. He has a Twitter account, they're free, you could have sent him a direct tweet in a matter of minutes, if you were actually serious about dealing with him. But of course you aren't. One, you don't actually feel like criticizing him to his face, and two, he might actually respond and you'd have to hope he doesn't come after you.

"since you have not criticized Barnes and Nyquist for their bad behavior. Not once from what I've seen at least."

Because first off, I don't see that anything they have done is really all THAT bad. YOU'RE the one that thinks simply criticizing Objectivism qualifies as "hate", it's YOU that are offended by "schadenfreude", and really, you don't explain why that bothers you so much or why you have to decry it on the behalf of others you feel are victimized, or whatever. I mean, there's whole CHAPTERS in Atlas Shrugged that are schadenfreude-by-proxy, where Rand has scores of fictional characters meet their horrible ends, and virtually revels in them getting their deserved fate.

"you don't apologize, or show any contrition."

Should I? You never do. Case in point:

"Actually I do. If I didn't live up to the standards I demand of others, I wouldn't have rebuked Dr. Binswanger for what he did."

Once it was mentioned, I actually remembered the incident, and looked it up. In fact, it was me that challenged you on the score in the first place! You certainly didn't pipe up on the post where the tweet was brought up in the first place, it was some posts later where you were again railing against the supposed bad, insulting behavior of those at ARCHN. You had to be PRODDED into making a weaksauce "criticism" for a comment you absolutely would not tolerate if it came from anyone at ARCHN. That's not living up to the same standards you demand of ARCHN, in any way.

And so why should I apologize for something I was essentially right about? Okay, so you made a "peep". (A weak, limp "peep" days after the fact, and only after challenged about it.) But the essential point, that you hold a double standard for our and your behavior, stands.


"Then shut the hell up."

Make me.

Jzero said...

"The above, if I remember correctly, is false. At first it started out civilly, as I was telling them I'm an expert on Objectivism and they can run any problems they have on Objectivm by me and I will try to respond in real time."

No, actually it is you who are wrong. Your first post was a big long screed that went "why, oh why, is Nyquist picking on poor defenseless Objectivism?", with little personal swipes like:

"To attack and denigrate something for this long, you'd think either the person had mental problems like Obsessive compulsive disorder,

---

Greg's blog attacks mainly reach fellow haters of Objectivists and Objectivism, so his efforts are worthless in the sense of only preaching to the choir. Only reaching those who already think and believe like he does. Which is arguably worthless due to redundancy.

---

Where are the shrill, sissy cries of Islam being a cult from people like Greg Nyquist or Michael Prescott, who have no problem whining about Objectivism being such, ad nauseum."

Not QUITE as harsh as later posts, but decidedly antagonistic, and not any less antagonistic than anything featured on ARCHN.

So, having been shown to be wrong, will QH apologize and be contrite? I seriously doubt it.

"This. Which I think I've already admitted to before. Then on top of that, I've been insulted many, many times by now."

Yes, well, as for the subsequent insults, refer to your own "retaliation" stance. As for the former, refer to my earlier statement on that: "But if that's so, does not anyone else have the right to retaliate against Objectivism for the disparaging judgements it makes on other people?" Or is defending others another double standard of yours, a privilege you reserve for yourself?

Lloyd Flack said...

One thing that is interesting about both QH an Anonymous, both get quite indignant about anyone commenting unfavourably on their trolling. "I was attacking this person so but out and let me continue attacking him in peace." "It's not your business." Sounds like both are in love with their own indignation and don't like having its justifications called into question.

This is not something that someone acting in good faith would do. Naurally both have rationalizations that put them in ithe right.

QuantumHaecceity said...

#Flack

"You have claimed that you are not an objectivist but when aske where you differ from objectivists you have never explained."

I already settled this with Barnes, when I told him it was irrelevant to my point, which is to take him to task for his bad behavior.


"If you think that people have to do what you claim is required to prove objectivism wrong then you have not been paying attention to the arguments presented on this blog."

They don't have to do it, but Objectivism remains unrefuted until those fundamentals upon which it is based, are shown to be false.


"Quite simply what you claim is preposterous."

Why?


"Now the question is why are you defending objectivism?"

It's an excellent philosophy, and the only one that is Naturalistic, that offers robust explication, and answers to various major branches and problems of philosophy


"So once again where do you differ from objectivists?"

I don't think Laissez Faire capitalism is correct. I can't say it's incorrect since it has never been tried, but it looks like, based on history, markets need some regulation. Perhaps even a lot.

Lloyd Flack said...

But if laissez-fair4e capitalism is incorrect then Rand's simple call for there to be no coercion or fraud is impractical. Or do you have broader definition of coercion than objectivists? For example one that includes restricting the options available to another?

And since as far as anyone here could see you showed no difference in your positions from objectivists it was quite reasonable for them to not take your protestations that you were not an objectivist seriously. This was not necessarilly calling you a liar. Rather it was seen as likely that you were placing an exagerated importance on small differences from their positions, differences than from an outsider's viewpoint were not important. Your behaviour here was seen as evasive.

Lloyd Flack said...

Objectivism is based on a false picture of human nature. Objectivists make the claim that the subconscious is ultimately programmed by the conscious and that nothing gets there without first going through the conscious mind. I think Rand can be excused to some extent for taking this position. But psychology has moved on and her successors do not have this excuse.
And Rand's desire to indulge in hero worship is dangeros to liberty. As well it is an afront to the hordes of capable but less than brilliant people who keep our civilization running. She overvalued the very top and did not let herself see how they needed the society nthat they were a part of.

Lloyd Flack said...

My last point about hero worship is something that you probably miss through not reading her fiction It's quite plain there. To really understand her you need to. As well she admitted it in an essay.

Jzero said...

Aw, no response to me? Any bets on whether QH is still building a huge rant in response, or has been flummoxed into silence?

QuantumHaecceity said...

Part 1 @Jzero

"Oh, sure you do. He has a Twitter account, they're free"

He hasn't used his twitter account in 7 months.



"Because first off, I don't see that anything they have done is really all THAT bad."

LOL! Of course you don't.



YOU'RE the one that thinks simply criticizing Objectivism qualifies as "hate"

It's not simple criticism of Objectivism. That is so biased and obtuse it's amazing. This website attacks and hates on Rand, Objectivism and Objectivists, that's why you have the Randroid insults, the cult insults, the posts attacking Rand's competency, the schadenfreude over rifts, excommunications, schisms, schadenfreude over movie flops, and petty gossip about what someone said about someone else.

And if all that wasn't enough, that is why you even have the attempts to rob Rand of any originality, so as to trash her as completely as possible. Because this is a hate site.



"I mean, there's whole CHAPTERS in Atlas Shrugged that are schadenfreude-by-proxy, where Rand has scores of fictional characters meet their horrible ends, and virtually revels in them getting their deserved fate."

Are you seriously pathetic enough to try to even the score with schadenfreude by referencing a make believe, fictional novel, as opposed to real humans engaging in schadenfreude in real life? (Rolls eyes and facepalms)


"In fact, it was me that challenged you on the score in the first place!"

LOL! What is the exclamation point for? I never said you didn't.


"You had to be PRODDED into making a weaksauce criticism"

This is irrelevant. You were proved wrong and you screwed up. You said there was not a peep out of me about it. You were wrong. There was. You are simply trying to save face on a point blank screw up on your part.

On your score, I have prodded and rebuked you for not criticizing the bad behavior of Nyquist and Barnes, and true to your sycophant nature, you have done nothing of the kind as far as I know. So prodding is clearly not sufficient to make people to the right thing or do something that they may be too biased and dogmatic to do.

QuantumHaecceity said...

Part 2 @Jzero

"for a comment you absolutely would not tolerate if it came from anyone at ARCHN"

It wasn't even that bad of a comment from Binswanger. He made an off the cuff remark about someone he clearly did not like and simply said "not exactly sad news.

Is that tacky? Yes. Is that in poor taste? A bit. He didnt say it was good news, just that it is not exactly sad news. It's not like he spit on a grave or something.


"And so why should I apologize for something I was essentially right about?"

You were flat wrong, and it's quote amusing and pathetic to see your inability to admit to such. Confirms again my assessments of you.


"Make me."

You're the one whining that no one takes me seriously, so if that is the case, shut the hell up. It is irrational and hypocritical for you to say you don't take a person seriously, yet take them seriously enough to respond to them, and do so with fairly large posts(whine fests really). You are quite the hypocrite.


"So, having been shown to be wrong, will QH apologize and be contrite? I seriously doubt it."

You need to learn how to read. If you notice there, I said "if I remember correctly". Which is a qualifier or caveat that denotes I am not making a conclusive statement of fact, but rather a statement that admits and realizes it could be in error or I could have mis-remembered.

You however, made a conclusive statement of fact, since it was devoid of any qualifier or caveat.

Instead of having the guts, or grace or decency to apologize for your blunder, you've doubled down and attempted to save face by making excuses for your screw up, and after a sufficient amount of rationalization, you conclude you were essentially right anyway.

Which is course laughable, and
is the act of someone who does not have the intellectual integrity to admit that they were wrong.


"But if that's so, does not anyone else have the right to retaliate against Objectivism for the disparaging judgements it makes on other people"

It looks very much like you are confusing Rand or some Objectivists, with the philosophy itself. Unless you can show where the philosophy itself makes disparaging judgments on other people.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Flack

"Objectivists make the claim that the subconscious is ultimately programmed by the conscious and that nothing gets there without first going through the conscious mind."

Do you have any links or quotes that confirm this to be Objectivism's position?

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Neil Parille

Can you confirm that the only Objectivist crimes of note or crimes at all, is one person, from, if I'm not mistaken, the 1970's.

If that is the case, that is a gargantuan fact in Objectivism's favor and shows the huge value of Objectivism as a philosophy of peace, and one that inspires its adherents to be peaceful and value life.

Wow! If that is correct and indeed all you have Parille, then this means Objectivists have produced one criminal since its instantiation in 1958!! And have not had any Objectivist commit any violence or crimes of any note, possibly even no crimes at all, in 34 years!!

If that is the case, this site should indeed not have made such a huge effort to trash and destroy such a beneficent philosophy.

I'm still waiting for this type of page for Objectivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

Am I to understand it doesn't exist??

Jzero said...

I knew it!


"He hasn't used his twitter account in 7 months."

He used it long enough to make that one Tweet - if you'd felt like it you could have responded to him THAT DAY. You were all over ARCHN before and after the post, you could have mentioned something all on your own when it was shown here, but no.

So yes, technically I was wrong, by the letter of it. But by the spirit of it, I'm on the money, since the point of the original statement was to show how, while you accuse people here of favoritism and partisanship, you are also guilty of that same kind of bias. And therefore, you have little legitimacy for your criticisms, because if you are willing to engage in the same kind of behavior you accuse others of, then that behavior must not really be so offensive to you. "Retaliation" does not justify it - two wrongs do not make a right. Whether I was factually correct about every last detail of it is a sidestep, avoiding the real issue.

"It's not simple criticism of Objectivism. That is so biased and obtuse it's amazing. This website attacks and hates on Rand, Objectivism and Objectivists, that's why you have the Randroid insults, the cult insults, the posts attacking Rand's competency, the schadenfreude over rifts, excommunications, schisms, schadenfreude over movie flops, and petty gossip about what someone said about someone else."

Guess what? That *IS* criticism. Rand's competency, for example, directly impacts whether her philosophy is logically sound. "Randroid" and "cult" labels aren't about Objectivism itself so much as about professed Objectivists, and if they're behaving badly, perhaps some insults are justified? You seem to think that works fine in the other direction, so why you have a problem with that can only be a result of the selfsame type of bias you claim to abhor in others. There's precious little "gossip", except inasmuch as it serves to illustrate the kinds of character flaws which have evoked those labels you dislike - there would be no "Randroids" if people weren't acting in ways that could be called "Randroidish".

The problem is twofold: one, you are flush with general accusations, but light on specifics. You say "hate", but you do little to clarify, to bring up examples of said hate (and you can't just glibly say "all of it"). Quote something from a main post. Dissect it, show us what hate exists. Odds are it will be fairly tame, in truth, and nothing that couldn't be surpassed by things said by Objectivists.

Two, even if you were willing to do this, your own criticism seems to be focused on how "mean" and "nasty" ARCHN is supposed to be - NOT THAT ANYTHING SAID IS ACTUALLY WRONG. Even if we grant that calling someone a "Randroid" is rude or otherwise not nice, that does not make the actual label INACCURATE. And if you are light in specific examples of "hate", you are practically barren when it comes to logically disproving the actual criticisms.

In fact, it could be interpreted that you don't really care if there are any flaws in Objectivism or not; what you're really concerned about is whether Objectivism or Objectivists get their feelings hurt. You could almost sum up your entire run on this blog in this way: "That Objectivist might be a jerk, but it's mean to CALL him a jerk!"

Jzero said...



"Are you seriously pathetic enough to try to even the score with schadenfreude by referencing a make believe, fictional novel, as opposed to real humans engaging in schadenfreude in real life? (Rolls eyes and facepalms"

It's not about evening the score, it's about you making a big deal about shadenfreude, when plenty of Objectivists (including Rand herself) eat the stuff like candy.

The reason Rand's novel is relevant in this regard is that Rand writes about the downfall of several people she finds to be morally reprehensible, and gives the horrible details about how they meet their ends. The infamous train tunnel disaster scene is preceded by a list of train passengers and their particular moral flaws (by Rand's standards), and then she goes on to (gleefully, I think) describe their destruction.

It's patently obvious that the passengers described represent different types of thinking that Rand objects to; I'm not so sure that she may not have based one or two of them on real people to some extent. And she pretty much makes it clear that because of their beliefs, they deserved to die.

Are these fictional characters? Of course. But does that mean that Rand was NOT taking satisfaction in setting up and describing their fictional destruction, as a stand-in for all the real people who held opinions she objected to? I don't think so, and I'm inclined to think that people who aren't Objectivists could probably see where I'm coming from with that. (Possibly Objectivists could see it too - I just doubt any would admit it if they did.)

"On your score, I have prodded and rebuked you for not criticizing the bad behavior of Nyquist and Barnes,"

Again, first I have to see bad behavior in order to criticize it. All I see from you is "j'accuse!" and overreaction to even the lightest critique. Find me actual hate worthy of the word, and perhaps we can work from there.

Even then, it's not my schtick to condemn petty "schadenfreude" or insults - that's YOUR bugaboo. Don't expect me to live up to your double standards. All I'm saying is that if certain behaviors are so bad that you feel the need to angrily denounce them, it's fairly hypocritical to either ignore the same behavior when it's done by someone on "your side", or engage in such behaviors your own self.

"It wasn't even that bad of a comment from Binswanger."

Perhaps, if you are willing to read it as being absolutely free of any sarcasm or subtext. Even so, that does not have any bearing on what I said: you would not have tolerated such a line if it had come first from anyone from ARCHN on the subject of some Objectivist's death or misfortune.

Jzero said...

"You need to learn how to read. If you notice there, I said "if I remember correctly". Which is a qualifier or caveat that denotes I am not making a conclusive statement of fact, but rather a statement that admits and realizes it could be in error or I could have mis-remembered."

And you DID misremember. So, very well: do you then concede, as I originally claimed, that you came out shooting from your first appearance? That you did not, as you claimed, first attempt to be civil and THEN "discover" the hate and go into rebuke, but that you were all about rebuke from the very start? And if that's true, how does one misremember such a thing, if one is so deeply offended by the hate? Why later try to be "civil" at all?


"It looks very much like you are confusing Rand or some Objectivists, with the philosophy itself. Unless you can show where the philosophy itself makes disparaging judgments on other people."

First, it's kind of disingenuous to try to divorce Rand from her own philosophy. Certainly the judgements she made of others both inform and were informed by Objectivism.

And when I said that, I was (I thought obviously) referring to Objectivism as a complete movement: both the philosophy and its adherents.

It is the Objectivists who actually make the judgements; it is Objectivism which tells them how to judge others, that they MUST judge others, and it tells them quite emphatically that certain people are evil, looters, moochers, and a host of other disparaging terms. Do we then grant those people the right to retaliate, as you would have it? Do we allow that other people also have the right to retaliate on behalf of the people being disparaged, as you do for Objectivists and Objectivism?

If yes, then it would seem that contrary to your complaint, ARCHN has the right to "attack" Objectivism in response to the attacking done by it/in its name. You would then be attacking ARCHN for exercising a right you also reserve for yourself.

If no, and ARCHN does not have the right to attack Objectivism on behalf of others, that calls into question any legitimacy you have to attack ARCHN on behalf of Objectivism.

Daniel Barnes said...

Anonymous wrote:
>OK Daniel, admit it. QH is a sock puppet.
I know it was fun creating a caricature-defender of Ayn Rand, but it doesn't work anymore. This guy isn't real. Nobody is this dumb. Nice try, Daniel.

Sorry Anonymous but you're wrong. QH isn't me. And yes, he really is this dumb!

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Jzero


"you could have mentioned something all on your own when it was shown here, but no."

Like I already said. I don't think it was that bad a comment. And I don't use twitter and likely never will.


"you are also guilty of that same kind of bias."

That's flat not the case since I did take Dr. Binswanger to task as far as saying something critical about it. So you were wrong by the letter and spirit.

Just admit you were wrong and apologize. Show some guts, grace and decency for a change.


"Guess what? That *IS* criticism"

There is a clear and big difference between civil criticism, like say Eric Mack or Michael Yang, and abusive criticism. At many times, this website does the latter.


"And she pretty much makes it clear that because of their beliefs, they deserved to die."

It's fiction.



"Again, first I have to see bad behavior in order to criticize it."

In order to see bad behavior, you have to not be animalistic, biased and a sycophant.



"that you came out shooting from your first appearance?"


I don't know how much shooting it was. It was more a matter of questioning why would someone go to the trouble of attacking a worldview for this long. What is the psychological dynamic that drives such hostility. Then it was civil, and then it was switched to rebuke. If I remember that correctly.


"First, it's kind of disingenuous to try to divorce Rand from her own philosophy."

That wasn't trying to divorce Rand from her philosophy, but clearly there needs to be a delineation, especially since she has been dead for 32 years. And also, I don't like Rand, and of course one can be an Objectivst of the school of Dr. David Kelley.


"Certainly the judgements she made of others both inform and were informed by Objectivism."

No, I don't think so. I don't see any of that here:

importanceofphilosophy.com



"it is Objectivism which tells them how to judge others, that they MUST judge others, and it tells them quite emphatically that certain people are evil, looters, moochers, and a host of other disparaging terms."

Where does Objectivism say hat they must judge others, and tells them emphatically etc, etc etc?

Is that here:

importanceofphilosophy.com

Because that is the Objectivism I admire and want to defend to a good extent. A beautiful, naturalistic, Atheist based philosophy.

I don't want to hear about no fictional novels.

Is it here:

importanceofphilosophy.com

QuantumHaecceity said...

"In fact, it could be interpreted that you don't really care if there are any flaws in Objectivism or not"

I don't see any serious flaws in Objectivism. I don't really see any at all, let alone serious.

But you seem to think there are some serous flaws, so tell me what the flaws of Objectivism are in its:

Metaphysics
Ethics
Epistemology
Political Philosophy

I know you can say well, look at the articles here, but I'm not wading through all that, I want to get to brass tacks, and get it in your own words.

And once I hear these flaws, I can logically assess if they hold muster.

I also already waded through many articles on here and I think the criticism and refutations are very poor and miss the mark.

So give me your logical refutations of Objectivism's branches in your own words.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Neil Parille

Can you confirm that the only Objectivist crimes of note or crimes at all, is one person, from, if I'm not mistaken, the 1970's.

If that is the case, that is a gargantuan fact in Objectivism's favor and shows the huge value of Objectivism as a philosophy of peace, and one that inspires its adherents to be peaceful and value life.

Wow! If that is correct and indeed all you have Parille, then this means Objectivists have produced one criminal since its instantiation in 1958!! And have not had any Objectivist commit any violence or crimes of any note, possibly even no crimes at all, in 34 years!!

If that is the case, this site should indeed not have made such a huge effort to trash and destroy such a beneficent philosophy.

I'm still waiting for this type of page for Objectivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

Am I to understand it doesn't exist??

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Barney

"QH isn't me. And yes, he really is this dumb"

Very bad behavior again from you Barney. Instead of having the guts or the grace, or the decency to apologize for dishonestly misrepresenting me again for I think the fourth or fifth time, you double down and resort to more abuse.

And now, you have resorted to no longer talking to me, but simply talking about me to others, which is again catty and childish.

Not good Barn! Not good!

Gordon Burkowski said...

Jzero: "It is the Objectivists who actually make the judgements; it is Objectivism which tells them how to judge others, that they MUST judge others, and it tells them quite emphatically that certain people are evil, looters, moochers, and a host of other disparaging terms."

QH: "Where does Objectivism say that they must judge others, and tells them emphatically etc, etc etc?"

Ayn Rand: "The precept: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged'. . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . . .

The moral principle to adopt. . . is: 'Judge, and be prepared to be judged.'"

Those words appear as the starting quote for Nathaniel Branden's first book on Ayn Rand, significantly titled: "Judgment Day".

I have always noted that Objectivists do an excellent job of the judging part, but are nowhere to be found when it comes to the "prepare to be judged" part. Q himself is a particularly nasty example of this.

Incidentally, I'd love to see what the reaction would be if Q went to one of those Objectivist sites he's always raving about, and tried dismissing Galt's speech as he does here. I suspect that the result would not be pretty to see.

Jzero said...

"Just admit you were wrong and apologize. Show some guts, grace and decency for a change."

You haven't, why should I?

"There is a clear and big difference between civil criticism, like say Eric Mack or Michael Yang, and abusive criticism. At many times, this website does the latter."

Provide examples. This is exactly what I was saying earlier: assertion, but no evidence. Bring up an example, explain exactly how it qualifies as "abusive", then we can assess whether you have any real case here.

"In order to see bad behavior, you have to not be animalistic, biased and a sycophant."

Assertion, but no evidence. You can repeat your little buzzwords all you like, but simply doing so does not make it true.

"It's fiction."

It's the fiction that is the opening manifesto to her philosophy. Rand uses Galt's speech extensively when detailing her own philosophy in later writings. Denial on your part won't change that.

"That wasn't trying to divorce Rand from her philosophy, but clearly there needs to be a delineation, especially since she has been dead for 32 years. And also, I don't like Rand, and of course one can be an Objectivst of the school of Dr. David Kelley."

That is, of course, debatable. There are many Objectivists who claim Rand as the sole true authority on what is and is not Objectivist, and anything that deviates from Rand is NOT. Objectivism does not evolve and grow - that's one of the criticisms found here at ARCHN!


"No, I don't think so. I don't see any of that here:

Because that is the Objectivism I admire and want to defend to a good extent. A beautiful, naturalistic, Atheist based philosophy."


Okay, I think we're starting to finally suss out the situation. You don't like Rand, though you want to defend Objectivism, so you're referencing a site that is "based on" Rand's work, paraphrasing much of what she says.

But it's Rand's full-on direct Objectivism that mostly gets discussed here. So when someone here at ARCHN says "Objectivism says this" or "Rand assumes such-and-such", it's that which gets criticized.

It is intellectually dishonest to take ARCHN to task for things it says about Objectivism, and then, when shown how what ARCHN says about Objectivism is true, to blinker one's own eyes and point to a paraphrased "Objectivist-lite" website and say "well, I don't see any of that HERE!" Your site may not actually be Objectivism as it is discussed here.

And it further erodes the notion of you being some kind of expert on Objectivism, since the implication developing here is that you don't really know much about what Rand herself says.

"I don't know how much shooting it was. It was more a matter of questioning why would someone go to the trouble of attacking a worldview for this long."

Using words that could be taken as insulting. As said before, if that had been something said by ARCHN about an Objectivist, you'd likely have regarded it as evidence of the "hate".

This is more of your double standard: when YOU do it, it's "questioning", when ARCHN does it, it's "abuse". You can weasel around it all you want, but you do not live up to the standards you demand of ARCHN.

Jzero said...

"But you seem to think there are some serous flaws, so tell me what the flaws of Objectivism are in its:

I know you can say well, look at the articles here, but I'm not wading through all that, I want to get to brass tacks, and get it in your own words.

I also already waded through many articles on here and I think the criticism and refutations are very poor and miss the mark."

I am going to call bullshit on this. I don't actually believe you HAVE waded through "many articles", nor do I think you've analyzed their arguments to be able to properly judge whether they're "on the mark" or not.

Because what I really think is that you've lightly skimmed over parts of ARCHN and seen some post titles and some phrases that tick you off and that is all that fuels your quest for vengeance, here. Your denunciations lack any kind of substance, your complaints all hinge on how mean and nasty ARCHN is supposed to be (again, not that anything they say is factually wrong, you don't bother to address anything like that). In all this, where is there any evidence that you've done what you claimed? Are we to just take your word for it?

And if I took the time to write my own refutation of Objectivsm and Rand, would you even read it? I'm doubting even that. Would you address it honestly and logically, or just fixate on some word you didn't like and dismiss it all as "hate"? What assurance do I have, at this point, that you are soliciting my analysis in good faith? None.

I don't really have time to get into it this moment. Perhaps I will point out one or two flaws later, but even that is going to be pointless if you just retreat into your other site and go "but I don't see that HERE"...

Also thanks to Gordon for supplying that example.

Neil Parille said...

Quant,


There are hardly any Objectivists in the world. Given their SES, I wouldn't expect them to commit much crime.

On the other hand, there do seem to be a disproportionate level of liars in the Orthodox Objectivist movement. Lenoard Peikoff has approved, if not authorized, the rewriting of Rand's posthumous material. This has been done by prominent Orthos such as Schwartz, Harriman, and Mayhew.

Did Orthos such as Binswanger and the late A. Gotthelf denounce Peikoff, et al. for their sins against Rand.


And if Orthos are (by definition) the most rational people on earth, why do they have so many schisms?

Daniel Barnes said...

Gentlemen, and Quan,
I believe that this debate has at least established two things.
1) Quan reckons the ARCHNblog is an evil "hate site" and we should leave Objectivism alooooonneee!
2) Everyone else reckons Quan is dumber than a bag of hammers, and a whining crybaby to boot.

And there you have it. Neither side is likely to persuade the other of the correctness of their views. I certainly rate the Quanmeister as one of our most dimwitted and thin-skinned commenters, and while not up there with the Randboy greats like the demented R Bramwell and uber-troll Michael Hardesty, he's certainly another loose thread in Objectivism's crazy quilt. And as such, it has been fun for a while.

However all good things must come to an end. Therefore I politely suggest everyone just exchange some final insults, taunts etc and move on.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Gordon

"Those words appear as the starting quote for Nathaniel Branden's first book on Ayn Rand"

If I'm not mistaken, Objectivism has rejected all or a lot of Nathaniel Branden's positions.


"but are nowhere to be found when it comes to the "prepare to be judged" part. Q himself is a particularly nasty example of this"


This is completely false. Since I am getting judged, yet still here to be found.


QuantumHaecceity said...

@Jzero

"You haven't, why should I?"

I don't recall being wrong about anything. You would have to jog my memory on what I've been wrong about.


"Provide examples."

This is a very good example:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2014/01/yaron-brook-orthodox-reformer.html#more


Nyquist insults and berates Dr. Brook 8 times by my count.


"Objectivism does not evolve and grow"

This is false as far as I can see. Clearly it does evolve and grow, which is why Peikoff and Harriman collaborated on that book about the problem of induction. An avenue that Rand did not get into at all, or not that much.


"again, not that anything they say is factually wrong, you don't bother to address anything like that"

I'm trying to, but you insist on focusing on personal junk.



"I am going to call bullshit on this."


Uh, OK, cool. But to again get to more substantive and worthwhile engagement, and to get off whining and personal junk, you seem to think there are some serious flaws in Objectivism, so tell me what the flaws of Objectivism are in its:

Metaphysics
Ethics
Epistemology
Political Philosophy.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Parille


"There are hardly any Objectivists in the world."

Which utterly supports my original view and query of Nyquist and the other people involved on his level, which I guess is yourself and Barnes.

Why would anyone go through the effort of bashing and attacking a philosophy for 9 years, that even one of its principles say, is hardly believed in by anyone in the world.

Very irrational to do if it is indeed true that there are hardly any Objectivists in the world

It would make way more sense psychologically, and be a better use of time, to go after something that is much more influential and has way more adherents.

Which is what I was saying and wondering from the very start.


"Given their SES, I wouldn't expect them to commit much crime."



The above is a very important and salient statement by Neil Parille.

I'm not sure what SES means, but I'm going to guess it means Socio-economic status.

If so, then based on abstract reasoning, Parille is saying by implication, that Objectivists have a high socio-economic status.

Well that is profound. Because we have now two huge dynamics that show how valuable and beneficial the philosophy of Objectivism is to society and to others.

You have the philosophy espousing peace and being civilized and advocacy of objective laws, and that is thus seen in its adherents.

And you have the philosophy espousing independence, productiveness, pride, individualism, capitalism, and purpose in one's life. And that is thus seen in its adherents, based on the implication of what was said by Neil Parille.


So this powerfully proves my central point. This philosophy does not deserve this website's bashing and attack and attempts to trash everything about it, and to even more, trash it for 9 years.


To stick to the philosophical side and offer critique fine, like Eric Mack or Michael Yang, but this site goes over to attacks against Objectivist's as a person, disparagement of Rand, schadenfreude, pettiness and underlying desire to hope for and contribute, to the demise of the philosophy.

Why do this against a philosophy that is so valuable and positive, rather than a religion like Islam, which I'd say is evil. Or to Christianity, that espouses eternal punishment and says ignorant things like "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding". Which is obviously a garbage way to come by objective truth.


Gordon Burkowski said...

"If I'm not mistaken, Objectivism has rejected all or a lot of Nathaniel Branden's positions."

It is ludicrous to question the idea that Rand insists on the need for constant moral judgments. It is at the centre of her ethical philosophy - and is one of the key factors that has led to so many schisms in the Objectivist movement.

The quote I gave - and many more on the same lines - can be found in Rand's essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" It is one of the essays included in her book "The Virtue of Selfishness." It is also cited in "The Ayn Rand Lexicon".

As usual, the Objectivist "expert" doesn't seem to have read much of Ayn Rand.

Michael Prescott said...

Hey Daniel, Greg, et al.,

It's been a long time since I looked in on this site. Sorry to hear that you may be closing up shop, or at least cutting back your hours, but I can see how you'd get burned out after so many years. I lost interest in arguing about Rand some time ago; it just gets old after a while.

Still, I hope the site stays around in some form. ARCHN has made a major contribution to the ongoing debate on Objectivism. I can't help but notice that the general quality of Objectivist recruits today seems to be lower than in the past. The reason, I suspect, is that in pre-Internet days, there were few critiques of Objectivism, and those that did exist, like Albert Ellis' Is Objectivism a Religion?, were not always of the best quality and were very hard to find. There were also no biographies of Rand available other than the hagiographic Who Is Ayn Rand? by the Brandens. As a result, the budding Objectivist could be excused for believing that Rand really was a paragon of rationality whose ideas had met no effective resistance.

Today, thanks in large part to Greg's book and this site, as well as to the various biographies starting with Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand, anyone seriously interested in Rand will quickly become aware of the gaps in her intellectual armor and the distance between her values and her actual behavior. This tends to turn off the more intelligent and honest people, or at least it gives them pause. The less intelligent and less honest ones just barrel ahead, discrediting themselves with their antics.

I've enjoyed reading the last couple of threads. It was especially entertaining when the World's Greatest Living Philosopher turned up, defended by an army of fans (or sock puppets?). Of course he must be the greatest living philosopher because he says so. Can you prove he's not? No? Well, QED. Or as Criswell says at the end of Plan Nine from Outer Space, "Can you prove it didn't happen?" Criswell, as you may know, was the World's Greatest Living Philosopher in his day—other than Ayn Rand, of course.

I don't know about anybody else, but for me, the reason I've been interested in critiques of Objectivism as opposed to other movements (say, Islam—though I don't know why that particular example occurs to me) is that I was personally involved in Objectivism for several years. I think it's natural to take an interest in a movement in which you once participated. It's similar to an ex-Scientologist following critiques of that movement.

Anyway, if ARCHN is going into (semi-)retirement, then let me offer congratulations on a remarkable run.

Michael

Jzero said...

Since DB has urged this to be the last round, this will indeed be my last post on the subject.

"Nyquist insults and berates Dr. Brook 8 times by my count."

But you don't bother to detail them. What specifically are you talking about? This is the problem that's been ongoing throughout your obsession with this site: you say "insult", but don't say what exactly the insult is, or what you find insulting about it. Glancing briefly at it, I saw "shill", which isn't exactly flattering, but as insults go it's hardly a reason to go around crying "hate! hate!". We can only assume that you are extraordinarily thin-skinned and sensitive - of course, you don't bother to show any of this sympathy in your own comments to anyone here. Double standard. I suspect the reason you don't go into detail (besides perhaps that you're just lazy/sloppy) is that if you actually took things apart and examined them in a more objective (not Objectivist) fashion, it would be even more apparent that you're getting worked up over trivialities. And you wouldn't want to have to actually confront your own worldview too much.


"Clearly it does evolve and grow, which is why Peikoff and Harriman collaborated on that book about the problem of induction. An avenue that Rand did not get into at all, or not that much."

And where did THAT go? The book is not particularly admired in the wider scientific community (meaning anyone not enthralled by Objectivism) and it caused a significant rift in the Objectivist community, all while trying to be compatible with what little Rand wrote on concept formation. "Growth" in this case is more like a wart - yeah, it's more than was there before, but it's not really adding much of value.

"I'm trying to, but you insist on focusing on personal junk."

What absolute tripe. Are you somehow bound by oath to respond to "personal junk" before you make any arguments with a factual basis? You could have been making factual statements all along, from the start. You have not been trying at all.

As for the flaws in Objectivism, I'm going to respect DB's wish, and so cannot devote the length and detail it would require - not that we aren't sitting on a repository of exhaustive criticism of Objectivism that you could have been reading, instead of asking that I dumb it down for you.

And yes, that was an insult.

Gordon Burkowski said...

Hello Michael.

It is good to see you back. You have been missed.

I was particularly struck by this:
“I don't know about anybody else, but for me, the reason I've been interested in critiques of Objectivism as opposed to other movements. . . is that I was personally involved in Objectivism for several years. I think it's natural to take an interest in a movement in which you once participated. It's similar to an ex-Scientologist following critiques of that movement."

That certainly describes myself. I suspect it fits most of the people who check in on this site. They aren’’t “Rand-haters” or panic-stricken Liberals: they are simply recovering Objectivists.

Fact is, most people on the left aren’t interested in Rand critiques: they know little about her and care even less. On the other hand, such discussions are both entertaining and useful to people who can remember the years they spent clambering out of the Randian rabbit hole.

It also means that many people on this site know Objectivism very, very well. They may have abandoned Objectivism, but they took a fair amount of time reaching that point. That’s why they don’t have much patience with people who style themselves Objectivists, but are clearly out of their depth when it comes to the details of the system.

My own experience with leaving behind Rand and her works was similar to peeling layers off an onion. Over the years, one thing after another proved inadequate and was rejected. And one fine day, I woke up and realized - that there was no more onion. But it doesn’t happen all at once. And I don’t think anyone who’s been deeply into Objectivism emerges without at least some damage. . .

Michael Prescott said...

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for the kind words! I agree with everything you said, especially this part:

"I suspect it fits most of the people who check in on this site. They aren’’t 'Rand-haters' or panic-stricken Liberals: they are simply recovering Objectivists."

Yes, I assume that's the motivation for most of the folks who would come here, or who have read Greg's book. I will say that during the process of disentangling myself from Objectivism, I sometimes had a tendency to be overly critical of Rand or even downright hostile. I now see this as simply a way of getting some distance or making a clean break, but I can understand how it would come off as "Rand-hating" to someone still committed to her philosophy.

It's really not about hating Rand or her ideas (some of which I still more or less agree with); it's about freeing oneself from an oppressively narrow and stultifying belief system. After the hard work of breaking free has been done, it's possible to look at Rand in a more neutral fashion and perhaps find some things that are worthwhile and even admirable.

Daniel Barnes said...

Michael P,
Thanks for your kind words and contributions to this site to date, they have been much appreciated.

As this site was only ever intended to be a small counterweight to the tonnage of pro-Objectivist preaching on the interwebs, we're more than gratified by the interest we've attracted over the years, especially those former Objectivists who've got some real insight into the "benefits and hazards" of Ayn Rand. At least there is now somewhere that can thoroughly point out the hazards.
Thanks again,
Daniel

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Gordon

"It is ludicrous to question the idea that Rand insists on the need for constant moral judgments."


My interest was not so much in whether Objectivism or Rand calls for constant moral judgement, but whether there is an automatic condemning of others in a negative manner. Which is what I gathered from Jzero's statements.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Jzero


"But you don't bother to detail them."

I already did awhile ago on the blog posting itself.



"And where did THAT go?"

But that still proves you to be wrong....again!!



"not that we aren't sitting on a repository of exhaustive criticism of Objectivism that you could have been reading"


I already have read many entries. As I already said, it's low grade criticism from a hater.

Which is why Nyquist has done everything he could to intellectually trash Objectivism, and carried on with such attacks for 9 years. Which is psychologically off, to put it mildly.

I find it hard to believe a normal person would carry on like this for so long with that person's opposition, ignoring them completely or almost completely for the entire time, as far as I know.

And over a philosophy and worldview that even one of his own cohorts says there are hardly any Objectivists in the world. Highly irrational behavior on the part of Greg Nyquist to waste his time like this if there really are hardly any Objectivists in the world.

One could easily have made an article like this in like a bloody day and been done with it:

http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-systematic-refutation-of-objectivism.html

Nyquist carries on for 9 years. Not one day, NINE YEARS! Very bizarre indeed. Even more bizarre is that doing this would logically cannibalize his book sales, since why would a person bother to pay for the book, when he is giving the milk away for free, here?

Looks like a person who was hell bent on making sure his attacks and denigration received the widest possible audience, even if that meant giving it away for free.

Over what? A philosophy that espouses peace, individualism, integrity, honesty, human rights, reason, free will, freedom, capitalism, taking responsibility for ones actions, being productive, justice, adherence to objective laws, that reality is objective rather than subjective, and holds that life is the ultimate value or ultimate standard!?!

You think Greg Nyquist would ever have the guts to write on a website of his and ask Muslims whether they are a Muḥammad cultist?

I highly doubt he ever would. Want to know why? Saying or asking that about Rand and Objectivsts doesn't require courage since Objectivists are amazingly peaceful.

Saying that or asking that about Islam....yeah!! Different story.

Lloyd Flack said...

I was never an objectivist but I was definitely strongly influenced by objectivism. The strongest attraction was that it offered a way to justify a moral code. I really wanted this and even though I had mixed feelings about that code I provisionally supported it as the kernel of a moral system. I never thought she’d got there but thought that she was probably on the right path.
I liked the idea of the requirements for living a successful life as a basis for morality. And I was impressed by her style of logical argument. Also I sympathized with the value that she placed on human accomplishment but never took it to her extremes. But then I did not recognize the extreme to which she had gone. Also the idea of no initiation of force sounds attractive.
I was never influenced by the epistemology or the aesthetics. The epistemology looked like something jerry-built to support the ethics. I never paid much attention to her aesthetics, seeing aesthetics as subjective and seeing no reason to replace my judgment with hers.
But like Gordon, bit by bit I found that I had to abandon her philosophy. I knew from the start that it was incomplete. Most importantly the idea of no initiation of force left no believable way to fund any sort of government at all. Then in one area after another I found that government activity was needed to maintain the sort of world that I wanted to live in.
But I still found her ideas intriguing even after I had rejected them. Also I wanted to know how I had ended up going up the garden path for so long. This site has been helpful. It contains in depth criticism by people who are familiar with what objectivism actually rather than by ideological opponents who misunderstand it and are merely seeking to attack it. Also I like the intellectual puzzle of understanding just what it says, where it is right and where it is wrong.

Gordon Burkowski said...

Posting by QH to Barnes et al, September 29:

"I'm tried of smacking around all your stupidity. You are hardheaded and a liar, and you are simply repeating things I've already answered so we're about done here unless I feel you say something that moves me to respond."

Number of posts since then: about 50.

Additional cognitive content: zero.

Evidence of memory loss: significant.

Cause: Who cares?

Lloyd Flack said...

Ah QH, as I understand it you think that objectivism contains the answers to most of you philosophical questions. And you think it is the result of diligent logical analysis. So you are defending what you see as something that promises you so much.
But in defending objectivism you don’t try to understand criticisms of it. You merely try to refute them. You are more interested in protecting comfortable beliefs than in examining them.
You are intellectually lazy. You ask people to spoon feed you their arguments without their knowing whether you will actually listen and try to understand. Further the conversation style that you want doesn’t work very well over the Internet. I believe that people here think that doing what you want would be a waste of time.
Further Rand wrote an extensive body of work. Its criticism requires substantial essays not what can be fitted in comments.
Your daring people to show their courage by going over to objectivist sites to argue is immature. No one is interested in that sort of little kid’s game. And other than posturing what purpose is served by going there? And wouldn’t giving in to your dare be evidence of moral cowardice?
Your saying that the criticism of objectivism here must be hate shows a lack of imagination about reveals a lack of imagination on your part. Might people find in an interesting problem? Especially people who have examined and been influenced or tempted by it. Remember people here have mostly rejected objectivism after considering it for a long time.
As for objectivism’s virtues yes it does encourage those that you mention. But what about the social virtues that it treats as being of little importance? What about things such as kindness and gratitude. objectivism does a lot of harm by undermining social bonds and encouraging conceit.
While the orthodox objectivist movement is small Rand’s influence as a mythmaker is great. But then of course you have never bothered to read her fiction. As well bits and pieces of her philosophy get adopted by many libertarians and some conservatives. It is worth examining what she did.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Gordon

Your most recent post to me, besides being petty and unnecessary, looks to be exceedingly stupid.

But before I conclude that it is as stupid as it appears, let me back up and see if I've missed something.

Based on what you quoted from me, what did that have to do with you being able to say: evidence of memory loss....significant?

Gordon Burkowski said...

@Lloyd:

Thanks for your posts. They are a breath of fresh air. I was interested by this:

“I was never influenced by the epistemology or the aesthetics. The epistemology looked like something jerry-built to support the ethics. I never paid much attention to her aesthetics, seeing aesthetics as subjective and seeing no reason to replace my judgment with hers.”

Actually, I think it’s probably the case that both the epistemology and the ethics are jerry-built to support her aesthetics. As a young girl, she immersed herself in Victor Hugo and other Romantic authors; on the philosophical side, she was heavily influenced by Nietzsche’s notions of the power of will and his worship of the Overman. You can read her novels – and her philosophy – as a quest to validate her adolescent obsessions.


The paradox here is that Romanticists like Hugo are scarcely the rational paragons she makes them out to be. Romanticism was a movement that praised the primacy of emotion, not reason: just check any of the hundreds of books that have been written on the subject. So it’s not surprising that her writings on literature and art are profoundly at variance with the facts. A serious cultural historian would react to “The Romantic Manifesto” in about the same way a biologist would react to a Scientific Creationist textbook – and for the same reasons.

Lloyd Flack said...

@Gordon,
You'r probably right about both the epistemology and the ethics being rationalizations for her aesthetics. The thing is, as Greg has pointed out, while in most areas Rand is half right, in aesthetics she gets it wrong and misses the point the great majority of the time. This is where she is at her worst.
She didn't hold up romantic writers as paragons of rationality. But she belived that if you had the right philosophical system and values that you would achieve an inner harmony such that there would be no clash between your reasoning and your emotional reactions. She called her approach to art Romantic Realism. And here was where she nearly completly stuffed it. I think largely because she was so out of touch with her own feelings and spun stories about them rationalizing them.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Parille


"There are hardly any Objectivists in the world."

Which utterly supports my original view and query of Nyquist and the other people involved on his level, which I guess is yourself and Barnes.

Why would anyone go through the effort of bashing and attacking a philosophy for 9 years, that even one of its principles say, is hardly believed in by anyone in the world.

Very irrational to do if it is indeed true that there are hardly any Objectivists in the world

It would make way more sense psychologically, and be a better use of time, to go after something that is much more influential and has way more adherents.

Which is what I was saying and wondering from the very start.


"Given their SES, I wouldn't expect them to commit much crime."



The above is a very important and salient statement by Neil Parille.

I'm not sure what SES means, but I'm going to guess it means Socio-economic status.

If so, then based on abstract reasoning, Parille is saying by implication, that Objectivists have a high socio-economic status.

Well that is profound. Because we have now two huge dynamics that show how valuable and beneficial the philosophy of Objectivism is to society and to others.

You have the philosophy espousing peace and being civilized and advocacy of objective laws, and that is thus seen in its adherents.

And you have the philosophy espousing independence, productiveness, pride, individualism, capitalism, and purpose in one's life. And that is thus seen in its adherents, based on the implication of what was said by Neil Parille.


So this powerfully proves my central point. This philosophy does not deserve this website's bashing and attack and attempts to trash everything about it, and to even more, trash it for 9 years.


To stick to the philosophical side and offer critique fine, like Eric Mack or Michael Yang, but this site goes over to attacks against Objectivist's as a person, disparagement of Rand, schadenfreude, pettiness and underlying desire to hope for and contribute, to the demise of the philosophy.

Why do this against a philosophy that is so valuable and positive, rather than a religion like Islam, which I'd say is evil. Or to Christianity, that espouses eternal punishment and says ignorant things like "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding". Which is obviously a garbage way to come by objective truth.

Lloyd Flack said...

QH, enough! You are sounding like a broken record. Why people here are interested in objectivism has been explained. You haven't listened. Apparently you find it more comfortable to see the criticism of objectivism here as hate. Which says something about how much you want to believe.
No one here denies that objectivism encourages some virtues. They think that in actual practice it discourages other virtues especially social ones and ones concerned with self-examination. Yes it pays lip service to these. Lip service.
Most people here rejected objectivism after long consideration. They know it better than you do.
You say you are trying to defend it but you don't understand it well enough to do that. You don't seem to seriously try to understand objections and this also helps make you ineffective. So you degenerate into attacks on the authors, attacks which people scorn.
A piece of advice, learn to actually listen.

Lloyd Flack said...

Daniel, sorry for the rant but his willful blindneess got too exasperating.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Flack

"You are sounding like a broken record."

I wanted to repost that so Parille won't miss it due to it being buried by other posts. Also because he hasn't responded to it yet.


"Apparently you find it more comfortable to see the criticism of objectivism here as hate."

The above is false. There is criticism here that is not hate. Criticism as in intellectual refutation that is strictly about substance. But there is also a substantial amount of hate on this site, as for example the schadenfreude over the failure of the Atlas Shrugged movies, which of course has jack all to do with sober and mature critique of the philosophy itself, and the petty, backhanded insult given to Dr. Binswanger because of what he said about Barbara, which of course has jack all to do with sober and mature critique of the philosophy itself.


"They know it better than you do."

I've seen nothing to show this is the case.



"You say you are trying to defend it but you don't understand it well enough to do that."

What is this based on?


Gordon Burkowski said...

@Lloyd: About three weeks ago, you wrote: "I think this sort of troll will go away once they realise that their atempts to upset people are getting them laughed at."

This was the right tack. It's useless to do a point by point refutation of someone who announces that he's "about done here" - then posts 50 more examples of the same nonsense.

Lloyd, I get it. Believe me. But it's time to stop feeding the troll.

Lloyd Flack said...

Gordon, I was mostly referring to the anonymous troll, who I think was almost certainly into upsetting people. Since his attempts were a resounding failure and only gave me opportunities to return the favour with interest he slunk away.
QH sees objectivism as the wonderful answer to his questions. He really won't let himself see why others think it is anything but And since his cherished system, or at least some of its more unpleasant proponents, are scorned here he goes on an immature would be retribution spree. Another failure but being a true believer, of sorts, he is more stubborn than anonymous. Since he is unwilling to admit that he might have made a big mistake, even for the sake of argument, there is no way to get through to him.

Gordon Burkowski said...

"Gordon, I was mostly referring to the anonymous troll."

I couldn't help noticing a lot of resemblances in style and even vocabulary between QH and the allegedly anonymous counter-troll. Michael seemed to be hinting at that too.

But really - who cares?

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Flack

"And since his cherished system"

This is false. It's not my cherished system. If that was the case I would be an Objectivist.


"Since he is unwilling to admit that he might have made a big mistake"

I'm not sure what the hell the above is even referring to or even alluding at.


"even for the sake of argument, there is no way to get through to him."

Your whining and psychoanalytic B.S. is starting to become a broken record and getting annoying.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Gordon

"It's useless to do a point by point refutation of someone who announces that he's "about done here" - then posts 50 more examples of the same nonsense."

Yep, what you said is exceedingly stupid, since it's obvious your petty whining is not valid as I wrote clear as day:

"unless I feel you say something that moves me to respond"

Gordon Burkowski said...

Hello Lloyd.

"I found that I had to abandon her philosophy. I knew from the start that it was incomplete. Most importantly the idea of no initiation of force left no believable way to fund any sort of government at all."

Yes, that's just one example of the untenable positions Objectivism leads to. The question I asked, which led to the fall of one Randian position after another, was: "Is this true in fact?"

Just asking that question means that one won't stay an Objectivist for long. One of Rand's implicit philosophical tenets is that facts don't come first: they are subordinate. Facts to an Objectivist are incapable of being properly understood in the absence of philosophy. In effect, you need to have a detailed metaphysics and epistemology or you might not come in out of the rain.

Anyone who finds this claim excessive should read Rand's essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"

By contrast, I think any effective baseline set of philosophical premises must allow for a lot of facts, a lot of conflicting perspectives, and an ongoing, continuous willingness to test even the firmest assumptions.

Significant in this regard is Rand's contempt for such an approach. Note her use of abusive terms for it such as "concrete-bound" and "complexity worship". With Rand, you always know you're touching a vulnerable spot when she steps up the rhetoric.

Lloyd Flack said...

I hadn't heard the term "complexity-worship" before. I just looked it up. Another example of her anti-empiricism. An attack on nuance.

Lloyd Flack said...

She argues like a mediaeval scholatic. She makes so many a priori arguments for what should be true and then chaims that it it must be.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Flack

"Another example of her anti-empiricism. An attack on nuance."

"She argues like a mediaeval scholatic"


If you feel this way and really feel what you think is true, I highly suggest you do like I have done, and go into the Lion's den of enemy territory and directly confront opposition.

Man up and go to Objectivist Answers and ask them questions about your problems with Rand and Objectivism and see what they have to say.

Airing out your grievances here means next to nothing because this is a hate site and you are thus simply complaining to the choir.

Especially when you are complaining or agreeing with a person who thinks just like you do.

These are the calling cards of cowards. Which is what most human beings are. They are real big and bold when they are in the majority or have the distinct advantage.


Real courage and mental strength comes from the ability to fight when you are outnumbered or not in the advantage.

So take it here if you are not a typical human coward:

http://objectivistanswers.com/



Lloyd Flack said...

But if I go there to because I am scared of being called a coward that is acting out of fear is it not? Your dares just make you look silly. I have not the slightest interest in proving my courage to you. Your judgment in this matter is not worth considering. So stop playing little kids' games, which is what you dares are.

QuantumHaecceity said...

"But if I go there to because I am scared of being called a coward that is acting out of fear is it not?"

No. You would be going there because you have been challenged NOT to act like a coward, and NOT talk crap on friendly territory.

You would be going there because you have confidence in yourself and want to see if your complaints truly have merit, rather than simply singing them to the choir. Which is the cowards way.


"Your dares just make you look silly."

I don't think so. That's your opinion and we must agree to disagree. It's not so much a dare as simply telling it like it is. I think some clown reveling in the failure of a movie makes that person look silly.

I think some clown trying to tear down a woman that has been dead for 32 years by trying to rob her of any originality makes that person look silly.

I think some clown trashing a philosophy for 9 years is hella silly for reasons I've already detailed. In fact, it's beyond silly, it's pathetic and disturbing.

I think some clown attacking a man with a doctorate that, as far as I know, never did anything to him, is silly.

I think some clowns clucking over the schisms of an organization they have jack all to do with makes them look silly. The same type of schism I might add, that happened between John Sculley and Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, and to some extent with Rich Kinder and Ken Lay.


I think some clown clucking like a hen about what a man said about a women's passing makes that person look silly.

I think some fool offering for people to take a test to see if they are a Rand cultist is silly and playing little kid's slander games.

And of course I could go on. This site is a disgrace. And it stinks of coward. Let this fool do this against Islam. That he does not and did not speaks volumes.

There are hardly any Objectivists in the world he says? Compared to what, 1.6 billion Muslims? Yeah, this site smells as foul as the 18 minute gap on the Nixon tape.

I don't know, maybe an Objectivist slapped the hell out of Greg Nyquist once and that's why he decided to take a piss on it for 9 years.

Very disturbing behavior to me. Was before, remains even more so now.

Anonymous said...

Muslims, muslims, muslims. If this Quantus guy is so damn concerned about muslims, where's HIS site all about how terrible they are? And how many people are on this site? 10, maybe? That's a lot less than there are Objectivists. How disturbing that he has to pick on them! Why doesn't he go off to some muslim forum and challenge them there?

Fucking islamophobe hypocrite.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Anonymous

Thanks for attacking me you jerk.

Maybe that will convince those two clowns Jzero and Gordon that I'm not you.

Which I've been laughing my butt off at how stupid they look in suspecting or thinking I am you.

It has simply reinforced how irrational and paranoid they appear to be.

I've been so shaking my head at how wrong Jzero and Gordon are, I was like dude, not only do I not have a problem with Michael Stuart Kelly like you do, I didn't even know who that dude was until he showed up here to offer support for Barney.

LOL!

Anonymous said...

Different anonymous. And yeah, not like I can prove it. But even if you and the other anon are the same person, it's not like it's unheard of for a guy to have his alter-egos fight each other to "prove" they're supposedly two different people.

If anyone was really that interested, it's possible for a site operator (like the owner) to set things up to log the IP address of posters, even aliases and anonymous posters. Wordpress I'm pretty sure has that kind of thing, not sure if Blogger does. If it does, it would be pretty easy for Daniel Barnes to go back and compare addresses to see if someone is using sock puppets.

But anyway, that's beside the point of you being the only true hater around here, Quats. So eat it.

Gordon Burkowski said...

Perfect. A match between equals.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Anonymous

"that's beside the point of you being the only true hater around here,"


I don't think so. I also don't give much of a rats behind what some anonymous punk says, to be frank.

A person who can't even be bothered to put a coherent name to their abuse should frankly be ignored.

And I'm probably going to have to take my advice real soon, cause you look like the sort of sucker that will start going on and on until he gets the last word.



"where's HIS site all about how terrible they are?"

This smells a bit foul and suspicious. I can't say this for sure, and don't feel like doing the research to find out for certain, but I recall the other anonymous person bucking up to me about where is my site taking the Muslims to task.

That's why I felt it was the same anonymous. Also a good reason to get a coherent, distinct name. But such a common sense action would only apply to non-trolls.

Gordon Burkowski said...


This is really enjoyable.

The exchange between Q and the most recent Anonymous shows very,very clearly that the problem with both these people is not the positions they hold.

It is their manner.

Both are nasty, abusive and irrational. Both could go on forever. (God knows, Q has proved that.) Most people find this style of argument disturbing and disgusting.

And now they've found each other. It's like watching a fight between two ill-coordinated drunks in a seedy bar, trying and failing to do each other harm. Being amused by it is certainly a guilty pleasure. But after enduring dozens of Q's offerings, it's a pleasure that many of us feel entitled to.

The exchange also shows why many suspected that the first Anonymous was a sock puppet. It's not "paranoid and irrational": when two people act and speak in the same nasty way, what they're saying is not what people notice: it's how they say it.

Another real laugher was hearing Q - of all people - say to the most recent anonymous: "you look like the sort of sucker that will start going on and on until he gets the last word." Incredible. Just incredible.

Now it's time for Q to say: "This is what ARCHN does all the time! This is a hate site!"

Don't bother. Everyone has heard it a hundred times before. Run along and play with your new friend.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Gordon

"when two people act and speak in the same nasty way"

Nah. It was just you and Jzero being paranoid and irrational.

Me and the anonymous person were/are different in many ways, such that there was no good reason to think we were the same person other than stupidity and some self serving agenda.

He curses, I don't. He was insulting me from the very beginning; he is vehemently against Objectivism, I'm obviously not, he has a beef with Michael Stuart Kelly, I have no problem with that person, the anonymous person shows a hatred and disrespect for everybody, like he did with those people's doctorates, while I show respect where it is due, like with Yaron and Bernstein and Tara Smith, and Dr. Reisman, etc, the anonymous person refused to engage in anything worthwhile from what I remember, while I have tried to engage in substantive debate like 5 or 6 times.


"Run along and play with your new friend."

It looks like you need to get the last word in Gordon. If you do, let me know. I'll be more than willing to let you get in the last word, so you can have one more swipe of petty, backhanded insults, whining and snottiness.

I've been noticing lately you seem hell bent on getting the last word for some psychological need of yours.

Or if you could, just shup up like Jzero and Barney has. You're not saying anything worthwhile anyway.


Lloyd Flack said...

Gordon, I think you have been unfair to our most recent anonymous who shall call anon2. Anon2 simply condemned QH's attacks on and apparent demonization of Islam. While I am more critical of Islam than I am of most other religions QH has shown himself to be worse than the majority of Muslims. Anon2's attack was quite justified.
The previous anonymous who I shall call anon1 was simply into attacking and mocking people. He seemed to enjoy it and resented any requests for civility. Trolling for kicks in other words.
I never though either was QH. QH seems to see himself as a white knight championing the unjustly accused. In fact he is more like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail who would not concede defeat even after all his limbs were lopped off.

Lloyd Flack said...

QH, you are trying to upbraid people for their supposed wrong doings. One question, why? No one here respects your moral judgment so you have no chance of chastening them.
Are You exposing their wrong doing for visitors to the site. All you have is condemnations, most with little substantiation and most showing little understanding of those that you condemn, and you have been quite evasive yourself. This is not going to impress most visitors.
Or are you doing this so you can tell yourself that you have stood up against those in the wrong? For self-congratulation in other words.
So what is the point of your commenting?

Jzero said...

(Sigh. I know I said I was going to retire from this, but this is the last, for sure:)


"Nah. It was just you and Jzero being paranoid and irrational."

For the record: though I floated it as a possibility, I didn't find it super-likely that you two were the same - as I said at the time, I don't think you could be that subtle. But you and Anon(1) shared some stylistic similarities, and seemed to obsess on similar points, though from opposing sides of the spectrum.

It wouldn't be too hard to imagine a scenario where you, in an attempt to "prove" how those at ARCHN were biased, would create an alter-ego (besides QH, that is), and have him pick a fight with an Objectivist, and when nobody criticized him, use that as evidence for your cries of "bias! hate!" A differing viewpoint would NOT be evidence against you two being the same, if your goal was to spoof an anti-Objectivist attack.

It is not difficult to imagine you having ulterior motives, since the motives you present on their face don't really make sense, especially considering your continuing harp on ARCHN for this litany of sins you keep repeating. I mean, you just instantly contradict yourself in the same post:

"I think some clown trying to tear down a woman that has been dead for 32 years by trying to rob her of any originality makes that person look silly."

"I think some clown clucking like a hen about what a man said about a women's passing makes that person look silly."

So which is it? Dead women are off-limits, or nobody cares if someone takes a shot at them? You can't even be logically consistent in your own complaints.

"Let this fool do this against Islam. That he does not and did not speaks volumes."

You know, it occurs to me that you don't have a clue what Nyquist may say or not say about Islam. Obviously he doesn't post it here - considering the whole focus of the site is on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, what would be the point? - but that doesn't mean he might not have opinions on Islam posted elsewhere. You're just ASSUMING he doesn't. Which reminds me:

"I recall the other anonymous person bucking up to me about where is my site taking the Muslims to task."

And to be fair, it's yet another question you haven't actually answered. More double standard?

But the kicker is that once again you're double-dog-daring people to go have it out on an Objectivist forum. Why? It's not like anyone here cares to prove their cowardice, or lack thereof, to you. (And people like you make it look sooooooooo inviting, why, I can't imagine why they aren't lined up around the block!)

Since there's no obvious reason that makes sense, the only things that come to mind are some sort of ulterior motives for you to keep trying to recruit people to that forum.

If you ask me, the most likely thing is that you're desperately hoping one or more of us will go over there because you're certain we will be A) attacked and abused; and B) somehow overwhelmed by the sheer fiery logic of the Objectivists there that we'll retreat in shame. And you want to see that happen.

In other words, you want us to go to that forum because you want to experience great schadenfreude - at our expense. Far from being some kind of sin you're angry about, all that's really at work is that you're not getting enough schadenfreude for yourself.

Otherwise, it's just an irrational, emotional dare that any sensible person would refuse, simply because it IS an emotional, immature dare.

Gordon Burkowski said...

"Anon2 simply condemned QH's attacks on and apparent demonization of Islam."

Lloyd, I was condemning the manner, not the content. And that, after all, is the issue. Watching Anon2 and QH have at each other, who would want to pick between them? And who would want to have either one for an ally?

Jzero, sorry if I said anything that pulled you back into this. You did much the wiser thing and I should have followed your example. But my sense is that Q is trying to trash the site with his endless moronic outbursts. If I was Daniel, I'd have ended it long ago - but that's his business.

Gordon Burkowski said...

Ending Q's outbursts, that is: not the site. . . :)

Daniel Barnes said...

@Gordon, I have a very liberal moderation policy. This is because 1) Objectivist forums usually have the opposite 2) I try to extend maximum possible opportunities for mutual understanding and perhaps most importantly of all 3) our Objectivist/Randboy commenters, especially the pseudonymous or anon, are basically advertisements for the philosophy...

Gordon Burkowski said...

Point taken.

Lloyd Flack said...

I think what annoys people most about QH is his misrepresentations. Unfortunately the tendency towards this comes with his motivations.
He has admitted that he sees himself as a white knight defending an unfairly attacked philosophy and its creator. But a white knight needs a villain to fight against. So he reads whatever you write maliciously. That is rather than try to understand he skims looking for the "Gotcha!".
He evades because he wants to attack people here and does not want to have to defend anything himself.
He will never admit this to himself but it slips out in what he says to commenters.
So he of course challenges people here to play similar games on other sites. But if anyone here acted like him on an objectivist site they would be kicked off and people here would not blame them for not putting up with obnoxious behaviour. Doing so on a Muslim site would be at least as obnoxious.
Ideally he should be ignored but people do not like being misrepresented and cannot be blamed for feeling compelled to correct the record. If you do feel compelled to reply try to reflect as much of his rubbish back at him as possible. His dares leave him vulnerable to charges of immaturity. How old is he by the way? QH, there is no agreement to disagree, your dares are immature. Just keep telling him how ridiculous he is whenever he does something ridiculous.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Flack

"QH has shown himself to be worse than the majority of Muslims."

I laughed at how irrational this was. So silly. It's so overboard and animalistic it doesn't require a serious response.



"One question, why?"

I already answers this. Barnes and Nyquist should be taken to task for their bad behavior. Especially since the hangers on and sychophants like Jzero, Gordon Burkowski and Parille are not going to do so.

Also, visitors should realize this is a hate site that is not fair, is not unbiased and clearly has an agenda of trying to destroy Objectivism.


"I think what annoys people most about QH is his misrepresentations."


What misrepresentations? You give no evidence to back up your charge.

Thus it looks like it is made up, and thus arguably a lie.


QuantumHaecceity said...

@Jzero

"(Sigh. I know I said I was going to retire from this, but this is the last, for sure:)"

Geez man! How many times are you going to screw up? You've already blundered and been flat wrong twice, and now you screw up and go back on your own word, showing you lack the self-restraint, discipline and integrity to even keep your word and do as you say you were going to do. Wow!



"shared some stylistic similarities"

I don't think so. But if so, you should actually prove your contention rather than simply make a bare assertion that is devoid of any evidence or support whatsoever.



"in an attempt to "prove" how those at ARCHN were biased"

Uh, this doesn't need to be proven dude. It's already been shown to be the case. Barnes himself is a walking billboard of bias, hence his Randroid insults.


"or nobody cares if someone takes a shot at them?"

This didn't make any sense.



"You can't even be logically consistent in your own complaints"


The above fails since what you wrote didn't make sense. You would also need to articulate what the logical inconsistency was between the two quotes you rendered.


"You're just ASSUMING he doesn't."

No. I didn't assume. The evidence allows me to say he has not with justification. The evidence that justifies is that, if I remember correctly, I've asked several times if he has trashed Islam or attacked Islam like he has trashed and attacked Objectivism, and no one said or showed he did, including Nyquist himself. Which allows me to think justifiably he has not, by way of negative evidence/silence.

Secondly, I already researched Nyquist and it turned up nothing as far as I saw, to show he has ever criticized Islam in the slightest. So that's evidence number two via personal research.

If he has, I ask that this be provided to know otherwise. If not, my position on that is justified.



"And to be fair, it's yet another question you haven't actually answered. More double standard?"


Actually, this would make you and arguably the others guilty of a double standard.

When I asked Gordon a question about what he said that was stupid, he never answered my question. It turned out what he said was very stupid.

When I asked you to explain the serious flaws in Objectivsm that you apparently think it has, you refused to answer my questions not once but twice upon asking.

When I asked that first Anonymous person to substantiate his attacks on Dr. Hsieh where he said she has said some incredibly stupid things on her site, he never answered my questions.

Same when I asked him to explain why he thinks Binswanger is a fool. He never answered my question.

When I asked Flack if he had any links or quotes that confirm his claim that the Objectivist position is that the subconscious is ultimately programmed by the conscious and that nothing gets there without first going through the conscious mind, he never answered me as far as I know.

So we have a double standard and more bias and foolishness on your part and the others. When I don't answer a question it's evasion and a double standard. But based on the fact that no one else is mentioning it, when others don't answer my question, it's not evasion or a double standard when you guys do it. That's a classic example of a double standard.


"Why?"

Because you guys, as far as I can tell, are cowards. So prove you're not by taking all your mess onto non-friendly territory. Also, and most importantly, if you really think Objectivism is flawed, go to that site and prove it to them, or at least challenge them with that, thus also challenging yourselves. Rather than being animalistic, and simply preaching to the choir and hiding in hyena pack ganging up and being in the majority with people who already agree with you and think like you do.

Jzero said...

Fine.

QH:"When I asked you to explain the serious flaws in Objectivsm that you apparently think it has, you refused to answer my questions not once but twice upon asking."

Because I was A) attempting to break this off and B) realized that you are so intellectually dishonest that it would not matter if I had gone through point by point and destroyed Rand's every last assertion with undeniable truths, you are the kind of person that could stare at a red-painted wall and comment about how blue it is, if that suited your ideological stance. If I had refuted Rand - which to do properly, would be a lot of writing - you would probably not read it, and if you read it, you wouldn't understand it, and if you understood it, you'd weasel around not admitting it. So tell me, in the face of all that, why should I invest my time? Really. Tell me of what worth it is to me, and how I could possibly trust you on that, especially since C) you haven't actually managed to address any of the actual critiques or issues on ARCHN in a coherent manner.

QH: "The above fails since what you wrote didn't make sense. You would also need to articulate what the logical inconsistency was between the two quotes you rendered."

Coming from the person who never EVER articulates why they say the things on ARCHN are "hate", just that they ARE, this is rich. So we'll play this one last time:

You call people "clowns" for disapproving of what Binswager said about Braden's death. The implication is that it's relatively okay to talk smack about a dead woman. However, you also complain about commentary that's trying to "steal" Rand's originality. Leaving aside the fact that it's impossible to steal originality - something is either original or it isn't, and while Rand and her followers CLAIMED originality, that's not necessarily true - you also talk about her being dead for so long, as if that's supposed to be some kind of ameliorating factor, that one should not criticize the dead. So your double standard, as revealed by your own statements, is that ARCHN should not speak disrespectfully against dead women, but that it's no big deal if an Objectivist does it.

If you can't comprehend or acknowledge THAT, then it's even less likely that you'd ever get past the first sentence of a critique of Rand, so if you weasel out of this one, you're just proving my point about a critique not being worth it.

QH: "Because you guys, as far as I can tell, are cowards. So prove you're not by taking all your mess onto non-friendly territory."

This is not a sufficient answer to the question "why?". You're daring us because we're cowards? That's like saying we're chicken because we're chicken. Moreover, what business is it of yours, and why should you care, about anyone's cowardice? None of this affects you in the slightest. Furthermore, why should anyone HERE care if you declare us cowards? Your stock here at this place is not only low, by now I'm sure that some people would almost see it as a badge of honor if you disapprove of them. Why prove anything to you? You wouldn't acknowledge it, even if we did. And to top it off, it's hypocritical for someone who hides behind a pseudonym to be accusing others of cowardice. You're no braver than anyone here. You're just more obnoxious, for less good reason.

So before you can consider yourself to have fully explained the question of "why?" you would have to address these points, but doing so would likely reveal the utter vacuousness of your stance.

Your other points are wrong too, but I can't be bothered to explain everything each time you spray some bile on this site, some things you just have to chalk off as lost causes and move on.

This truly is the last, I just had to pick this low-hanging fruit.

Gordon Burkowski said...

"QH seems to see himself as a white knight championing the unjustly accused. In fact he is more like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail who would not concede defeat even after all his limbs were lopped off."

Say no more, Lloyd. No one's improving on that.

QuantumHaecceity said...

Part 1 @Jzero

"So tell me, in the face of all that, why should I invest my time? Really. Tell me of what worth it is to me"

Well you bucked up about Objectivism having serious flaws, and talk all this mess about it, so it's simply a matter of putting your money where your "mouth" is and proving it with actual argument and evidence.

You've made excuses to not do so, which is what it is, excuses, so sit down, puff down your chest, and sod off. You were challenged and you backed down from that challenge, and at the end of the day, that is what takes your measure in this context. I.E. you failed.


"Coming from the person who never EVER articulates why they say the things on ARCHN are hate"

This is again flat false from you. I've done so several times. I articulated it with the disgusting attack this site made on Dr. Yaron Brook, I also did so by listing a bunch of hateful blog postings, and even that post you responded to was articulating the hate on here, the one where I listed a bunch of thing Nyquist and Barnes and other sycophants here have done that makes them look silly.

Hell, the articulation of the schadenfreude of Barnes is another example of me articulating the hate on this site, since schadenfreude to me is a form or manifestation of hate.

You fail so hard Jzero! LOL!



"You call people "clowns" for disapproving of what Binswager said about Braden's death."

Yeah, your thinking is confused and a misrepresentation, and that's why what you initially said didn't make sense to me and your claim of a logical inconsistency is false.

Daniel Barnes post didn't make him a clown or was silly because he disapproved of what Binswager said about Branden's death. It make Barnes look silly and a clown because he went out of his way to post that simply to be petty and vindictive and to engage in hen cackling gossip about what this person said about this person.

In fact, he really didn't even disapprove of what was said, so much as he simply gave a backhanded insult to Dr. Binswanger. There was no explicit disapproving from Barnes via the blog posting. Just the backhanded insult of "stay classy".

So your claim of logical inconsistency is based off you being confused and misrepresenting why I think, that made Barnes look like a clown and silly.


"The implication is that it's relatively okay to talk smack about a dead woman."

This implication is based off of your own faulty assumption and misrepresentation, as has just been explained.


"Leaving aside the fact that it's impossible to steal originality - something is either original or it isn't,"

This didn't make sense for the most part, I didn't use the word steal, but rather the word rob, and it is possible to try to rob someone of originality, when rob is understood as to deprive.

Your thinking is confused and sloppy.

QuantumHaecceity said...

Part 2 @Jzero

"So your double standard, as revealed by your own statements, is that ARCHN should not speak disrespectfully against dead women, but that it's no big deal if an Objectivist does it."

The above has been shown to be false since it's based on a fallacious strawman argument on your part, since I never said nor implied that it's no big deal if an Objectivst does it. And on top of that, my rebuke of Dr. Binswanger explicitly shows that is false, on top of your strawman fallacy.


So again, you fail, and fail hard.


"you're just proving my point about a critique not being worth it."


Based on what I've seen from you, you probably can't muster a critique worth a flying wick or even know how to cogently argue such a thing, since based on what I've seen, your intellect is shoddy and not up to muster.

Which is probably why you are making excuses and ducking out of my questions and challenge to you like you're Floyd Mayweather ducking from a fight with Manny Dapidran Pacquiao.



"That's like saying we're chicken because we're chicken."


The above is sheer stupidity from you again. Just shoddy thinking that is confused. It wouldn't be saying you're chicken because you're chicken, it would be you look to be chickens, show you are not. Your intellectual capacities look to be very, very poor.

Which would explain why you never, as far as I can recall, hold forth on intellectual matters, but just whine and cry and engage in personal junk.



"Moreover, what business is it of yours, and why should you care, about anyone's cowardice?"

Probably for the same reason you and Burkowski and Parille and Anonymous and Flack butted into a situation that had nothing to do with you and started talking crap, when it was just between me and Barnes. You wanted to and you made it your business. Duh!(places dunce cap on Jzero's head)


"You wouldn't acknowledge it, even if we did"

Of course I would acknowledge it. How can one sanely deny something that is empirically verifiable? Stop being so ridiculous. You're just making excuses as usual.

QuantumHaecceity said...

Part 3 @Jzero

"it's hypocritical for someone who hides behind a pseudonym to be accusing others of cowardice"

This is so stupid! (Rolls eyes) It's not about a pseudonym, it's about showing you have the cojones to do more than talk all your crap on friendly territory, to people who already think like you do. It's about showing you have the courage and boldness to take on opposition on their turf, that outnumber you and may gang up on you. It's about having the courage, most importantly, to challenge people who actually are Objectivists, and who likely are educated on it, rather than complain and whine about Objectivists and Objectivism to people who hate it, and them, and probably haven't taken the time to understand it in an unbiased manner.

All that is the case irrespective of whether a pseudonym is or is not used.


"You're no braver than anyone here."

No, I very much am. I've taken on opposition and hostile folk, on their own turf, by myself, with no help, and usually while being ganged up on 1 on 4 or 5 or 6. That is not only brave, it is rather heroic. Even more impressive, is that I have done so with ease.



"This truly is the last, I just had to pick this low-hanging fruit."

Good. Hopefully you can show some integrity and self-discipline and keep your word and not break it for the third time. Also your long whine fests are annoying.

You've failed miserably intellectually, and you even fail with that too.

Here you go Jzero, to send you off into the sunset, since you say that is truly the last:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHHRDxjw7hE

Anonymous said...

This QH guy STILL hasn't answered the question of where his own anti-muslim site is. Evader.

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Anonymous

"This QH guy STILL hasn't answered the question of where his own anti-muslim site is. Evader."


I already answered and destroyed this when Jzero brought it up.

Anonymous said...

Like hell. You just dodged and said "oh, here's some of YOUR double standards". That doesn't say where your own anti-muslim efforts are. So dodge more, cupcake. Tell us what you did to take on Islam, like the brave brave dude you are.

Gordon Burkowski said...

Hey Cupcake!

How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?

Lloyd Flack said...

King Arthur versus the Black Knight from Monty Python and the holy Grail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

QuantumHaecceity said...

@Anonymous

"Like hell. You just dodged and said"


I addressed and destroyed that question by pointing out that I've asked several questions to various people on here and they refused to answer, so if it's not a problem or evasion when they do it, then it's not a problem for me to do so either.

Otherwise we are looking at a double standard.

Also, such a question is irrelevant to my main task, which was taking Daniel Barney Barnes to task for his bad behavior.

That has been done very successfully and he has even quit and ran. So this is to be wrapped up now.

Please stop instigating this Anonymous. It's gone on long enough. Time to move on. Even Parille has ran and hid. So it's good to go as far as I'm concerned.

Gordon Burkowski said...

@Lloyd:

Yes, just as funny as I remember. And right on the money.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 274   Newer› Newest»