On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

[JRoberts 0]

If you disagree, then why not agree to disagree.

Is the claim here that if one identifies unjust standards (on a forum dedicated to a philosophy of reason), one cannot speak of them and seek to have them changed?

There can't be justice on an internet forum.

If someone were to come on here and start cursing about Ayn Rand, they would be banned. There is not "freedom of speech" on this Forum.

The rules and standards were set in place by the Speichers for a reason. Betsy owns it. She pays for it. She manages it and takes care of it. And she invited you (and all of us) to take part in this-at no cost.

[PhilO 0]

There can't be justice on an internet forum.

If someone were to come on here and start cursing about Ayn Rand, they would be banned. There is not "freedom of speech" on this Forum.

I agree with what you wrote except for the first sentence. Banning somebody who curses Ayn Rand - or, e.g., somebody who is, in fact, chronically and relentlessly hostile towards all other posters and seemingly completely lacking in self-awareness, self-monitoring, and self-control - is an act of *justice*.

[B. Royce 0]

Why can't it be tone?

I've simply identifying the change of claims. Is the suggestion here that it is wrong to make such an identification?

By the way, by saying "subjective" are you saying that primacy of consciousness you underlies all evaluation of writing style?

Loaded question.

What I am saying is that this means one can't look to set rules or principles of The Forum.

As an aside here, I find it interesting that, of all the things there have been to respond to: double standards, claims that arbitrary assertions are self-validating, personal address is not appropriate on The Forum, etc. etc., that it is my identification that the standard which determines what is "on" and "off" topic is "spirit" that has elicited a response. And, coincidently, that response is from exactly those same individuals who complain that my straightforward approach is somehow 'hostile'.

If you want to accuse me of "belligerence" or "hostility" or anything else, just do it. But don't make the accusation an arbitrary assertion. Back up the accusation with some actual proof.

I agree with you, Brian. Your logic is admirable.

[JRoberts 0]

I agree with what you wrote except for the first sentence. Banning somebody who curses Ayn Rand - or, e.g., somebody who is, in fact, chronically and relentlessly hostile towards all other posters and seemingly completely lacking in self-awareness, self-monitoring, and self-control - is an act of *justice*.

What I should have said was that there is not the same type of justice on a private internet forum as there is in our nation: meaning that, the freedoms we have obviously do not translate onto freedoms on a privately-owned internet forum. The rules and regulations are set up by the owner for reasons of their own. We are free to agree or disagree, but we must either follow them or leave.

[Brian Smith 0]

We are free to agree or disagree, but we must either follow them or leave.

Excellent. I am glad you agree that we are free to disagree. And I hope we all agree that is precisely what I am doing. So, since I am doing exactly that which you claim I am free to do, your complaint here is...?

The rules and regulations are set up by the owner for reasons of their own.

Is the suggestion here that the owner is not open to reason or to change? If so, I would say Ms. Speicher's actions here alone refute such a suggestion.

[JRoberts 0]

Excellent. I am glad you agree that we are free to disagree. And I hope we all agree that is precisely what I am doing. So, since I am doing exactly that which you claim I am free to do, your complaint here is...?

I addressed this in my first post. If you don't understand, why don't you ask for her to provide a succinct, one sentence statement? If you disagree with that-fine. But the rule, then, is the rule.

Is the suggestion here that the owner is not open to reason or to change? If so, I would say Ms. Speicher's actions here alone refute such a suggestion.

I can't speak for Betsy, but I would assume that she established this rule in order to maintain a sense of civility, decency, and friendliness on her forum.

If you know that she wants decency, civility, and friendliness-why not then just continue posting with this in mind? The best way to handle this may be on a case-by-case situation. If she finds something that you or anybody said offensive or off topic, I'm sure that she would be open to a conversation between the two as to what was wrong with that specific post and why.

[Brian Smith 0]

I'm sure that she would be open to a conversation between the two as to what was wrong with that specific post and why.

Which is EXACTLY what is going on here. As such, I look forward to the continuation of that conversation absent any additional posts which suggest that the conversation should somehow not be taking place.

[JRoberts 0]

Which is EXACTLY what is going on here.

I see no ground being made in this thread. So no, that is not what is going on here.

As such, I look forward to the continuation of that conversation absent any additional posts which suggest that the conversation should somehow not be taking place.

There's a difference between the content of a conversation and the manner in which it is presented.

[Brian Smith 0]

I see no ground being made in this thread.

Thank you for your opinion.

[RayK 0]

Which is EXACTLY what is going on here.

I see no ground being made in this thread. So no, that is not what is going on here.

As such, I look forward to the continuation of that conversation absent any additional posts which suggest that the conversation should somehow not be taking place.

There's a difference between the content of a conversation and the manner in which it is presented.

I also do not see any ground being made, but that does not mean that Brian has not been attempting to do just that.

I think that most people on this forum want a certain civility as that lends to values being achieved. But, one must not hesitate to write exactly what they think. If you do not agree with their manner or use of words, say so. But, that does not mean that they are intentiionally being uncivil. Telling someone they are wrong, even if it is considered to be a harsh by some, is not always an attack on someone.

On a slightly different note, I do not see the request for someone to be more precise on their statements as attacking them. I also think that some need to stop being so vague and hence maybe other's would not misunderstand their statements. Stating that "you misrepresent my statements" and then not telling us exactly what one's thoughts are just adds to the vaguenees and misunderstanding.

[Brian Smith 0]

The following quote demonstrates quite clearly the double standard I have been focusing on here:

I would prefer people just say, "My view is really ..." when another poster misunderstands or mischaracterizes what they said.

Note Ms. Speicher's presumption of error here on the part of the listener rather than the speaker.

Less desirable is, "You're wrong. My view is really ..." but that is still acceptable because after a brief statement of disagreement, it gets right back on topic.

So, while Ms. Speicher would "prefer" forum members not to lay blame for miscommunication, she considers it an "acceptable" practice. In other words, we are being told speakers here may accuse other members of being responsible for what may in fact have been the speaker's own error. And we are being told the truth or falsehood of that accusation is not to be questioned. In fact, we are being told it is unacceptable to dispute this accusation at all.

Bob: You are wrong, Mary.

Mary: I wasn't wrong.

Mod: Shut up Mary. You are off-topic

Mary: But where is Bob's proof that I wa-

Mod: I said shut up Mary. You are off-topic.

Put simply, Ms, Speicher explicitly permits members to make arbitrary assertions against other members of The Forum. But she prohibits those other members from disputing these arbitrary assertions against them.

How is this just? How is this rational? How is this even independence - ie how is telling a person to accept an arbitrary claim of error (not to mention identifying it as essentially self-evident) not second-handedness?

How is a double standard identified as "acceptable" on a forum dedicated to a philosophy of rationality?

If one does not want conversations to go off the topic, that is fine. But then, one needs to explain how an arbitrary assertion of WHO is to blame for miscommunication between two individuals is somehow "on" topic. Not only that, but one needs to explain how the initial arbitrary assertion of WHO is to blame for miscommunication is "on" topic and yet any counter-claim of who is to blame for miscommunication is somehow "off" topic.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The following quote demonstrates quite clearly the double standard I have been focusing on here:

I would prefer people just say, "My view is really ..." when another poster misunderstands or mischaracterizes what they said.

Note Ms. Speicher's presumption of error here on the part of the listener rather than the speaker.

Error? Not necessarily. But it does illustrate what a person should do if they think, correctly or incorrectly, that another poster has misunderstood or mischaracterized what they said.

Even if it was someone's error, this doesn't indicate that it was the listener's error. I know that sometimes I don't provide enough context or evidence for someone to understand me. His stated misunderstanding puts me on notice that I may have to make my case better, give more evidence, clarify something, etc. Beginning by stating my actual misunderstood or misrepresented view is a very good start in the direction of clearing up the misunderstanding regardless of how it happened.

Less desirable is, "You're wrong. My view is really ..." but that is still acceptable because after a brief statement of disagreement, it gets right back on topic.

So, while Ms. Speicher would "prefer" forum members not to lay blame for miscommunication, she considers it an "acceptable" practice. In other words, we are being told speakers here may accuse other members of being responsible for what may in fact have been the speaker's own error.

Considering all the honest ways a rational person could come to a mistaken conclusion, simply stating that someone is wrong is neither blaming or accusing him.

When someone claims that something I said is in error, I take it in one of the following three ways:

1. If I didn't say what he claims I said, I tell him that and/or clarify my position further.
   
2. If I did say what he said I did and I think I'm right, I present additional evidence and deal with his objections and evidence.
   
3. If I did say what he says I said and I am wrong, I say "Thank you."
   

And we are being told the truth or falsehood of that accusation is not to be questioned. In fact, we are being told it is unacceptable to dispute this accusation at all.

Bob: You are wrong, Mary.

Mary: I wasn't wrong.

Mod: Shut up Mary. You are off-topic

Mary: But where is Bob's proof that I wa-

Mod: I said shut up Mary. You are off-topic.

Instead of the above, how about:

Bob: You are wrong, Mary.

Mary: Why?

Bob: You said X, but the facts are Y.

Mary: Oops! I didn't mean to say X. Let me clarify ....

Bob: So you now agree with me that it is Y.

Mary: Not necessarily. What evidence do you have that it is Y?

Bob: Observe this fact and this fact ....

Mary: Very interesting. I'm still not convinced, but you sure gave me something to think about.

In the above exchange, Bob and Mary are not taking anything personally nor getting sidetracked into arguments about arguments. Both of them are sticking to the topic involving ideas X and Y and focusing on the evidence and reasons for those ideas.

Mod: Great discussion Bob and Mary!

[Brian Smith 0]

I know that sometimes I don't provide enough context or evidence for someone to understand me. His stated misunderstanding...

Here it is again. WHOSE misunderstanding? The definition of misunderstand is: "1. to take (words, statements, etc.) in a wrong sense; understand wrongly. 2. to fail to understand or interpret rightly the words or behavior of.

In other words, when you claim: "You misunderstand..." you are claiming: "You are taking my words in the wrong sense." When you say: "His stated misunderstanding..." you are saying: "His failure to understand or interpret my words rightly."

In other words, as I keep pointing out, you are assigning BLAME for the miscommunication on the listener.

Considering all the honest ways a rational person could come to a mistaken conclusion, simply stating that someone is wrong is neither blaming or accusing him

Here it is AGAIN - the accusation that the listener has come to a "mistaken conclusion" rather than the speaker having somehow been the one who is "mistaken".

See if this helps make the point clear. Take your green cheese example again. You claim "The moon is made of green cheese" and I respond: "That statement is false. The moon is made of rock, not green cheese." It would be both irrational and unjust for you to claim: "You are wrong. I meant to say 'The moon is NOT made of green cheese." In this case it is the listener who is RIGHT. It is the speaker who is wrong. To claim that the listener is wrong for identifying the facts of reality correctly (both what was said and its relation to existence) is grossly unfair!

The only thing the listener could be accused of being wrong about is reading the speakers mind!

The point here is that - contrary to your assertions - the claim "You are wrong" (just like "You misunderstand..." etc) is an accusation that the listener ("you") is responsible for error (or mistake - or deviation from the truth - or, whatever term you want to reference in order to avoid a debate about a word which is non-essential to this discussion). The further point is that it is unjust to prohibit the accused from defending against this arbitrary assertion.

When someone claims that something I said is in error, I take it in one of the following three ways:

[1]If I didn't say what he claims I said, I tell him that and/or clarify my position further.

[2]If I did say what he said I did and I think I'm right, I present additional evidence and deal with his objections and evidence.

I agree completely. That is exactly what I do as well. One small problem.

This is what you are PROHIBITING!

You have been stating if someone claims: "You are wrong" that it is "off topic" to tell him that is not true and clarify why. You have been stating it is "off topic" to present additional evidence and deal with his objections and evidence. Put simply, you have been saying it is forbidden to use EITHER of your options here. Are you now saying it IS okay to do these things?

All these constant changes and contradictions between your assertions here are starting to make my head spin.

Look - the point I made in my last post remains. You are employing a double standard. You are allowing speakers to make b]arbitrary accusations against other members of The Forum and you are forbidding those members any defense against these accusations. As I previously suggested, if you want to avoid the double standard either allow the defense or forbid the accusation. But don't continue the injustice of the double standard.

[Carlos 0]

That this argument has even dragged on for 4 pages is bewildering.

Brian, look at this post:

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...ost&p=64081

Do you not realize that the post is more about my thoughts than being about the topic under discussion?

Can you not see the difference if the post had been written:

Carlos, I don't understand the basis on which you make these assertions. Wouldn't the fact that the schools are voluntarily funded cause them to be ran just as if they were a private business? etc...

One is unnecessarily aggressive, the other isn't. One places an unnecessary amount of focus on my mind and my thinking processes instead of just sticking to the discussion, while the other doesn't. One is unnecessarily personal, the other isn't.

This is the real crux of the issue, and the last four pages of unnecessarily complicated philosophizing has only served to obscure and confuse what should be an extremely simple issue, and that is this:

Do you not see the huge difference between your original post and my suggested post, and how one can be improper and the other can be improper? Please, before spending any more time crafting detailed and complicated arguments, just answer this in a simple and straightforward manner.

[Carlos 0]

Whoops, correction:

...and how one can be improper and the other be *proper*?

[Carlos 0]

Here are some better examples:

Here you exercise your ability at mind reading to inform me that I a disagree with a principle of Objectivism (when if you had asked me to clarify my position you would have learned that I actually didn't):

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...ost&p=64007

Here you inform me that my ideas are in "gross contradiction" of Objectivism (when once again you misinterpreted, and I my idea actually didn't contradict Objectivism):

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...ost&p=63995

And here you go as far as to "SERIOUSLY question" my conceptual knowledge (once again without feeling a need to seek clarification first):

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...ost&p=63990

Brian, there are two conclusion in all of this: either you are the world's best mind-reader and I have been lying this entire time, or perhaps you made mistaken judgments about my thoughts and beliefs without seeking actually clarification first.

[oldsalt 0]

Unlike Carlos, I have not found this discussion bewildering. I find it immensely stimulating. I have always wanted to understand logic to the point that I could think and argue the way Brian does. He is ruthless in his logic. And honest. But I have neither the knowledge of grammar, nor schooling in logic to accomplish this.

Reading this thread has required a certain splitting of my attention. Brian is using his logic to argue his point, others are taking umbrage at a perceived aggression on his part. Brian is making a valid point. Those who take umbrage at "complicated arguments" are expressing something besides an answer to his argument. Frustration is evident on both sides. The cause of the frustration is, as I see it, in each individual's knowledge of logic, and here I mean in the formal sense. While I think that everyone here endeavors to always be rational, knowledge of the formal logic required for the clearest thinking is sometimes lacking to one degree or another. I know it is with me. It can be frustrating trying to wrap my mind around an argument when I'm not sure of the logic involved. But that is my problem, and with Brian, I see it as an opportunity to listen to someone who can help me attain my goal to focus and think properly.

I honestly don't think that Brian is being belligerent or playing gotcha. I think he is focusing on arguing what is said. His manner is abrupt and without social flourishes, which can wear on a frustrated mind. I understand this and have felt it myself. This has nothing to do with the validity of his argument. For me personally, it is the expanding frustration of the participants that causes my own impatience. These are emotional responses (and very human ), however, and I recognize them as such.

I'm not sure what the answer is. What I do know is that I have learned the most from the most demanding among us. Stephen forced me to shed a certain complacency I had accepted, and to focus on my own argument. Burgess Laughlin, who used to frustrate me no end, forced me to make sure I defined my terms. Brian forces me to pay attention to my own sloppy formulations, and to what others are actually saying. All have taught me to raise my standards, all to the good. This doesn't mean that I didn't have to first question, and deal with, my own emotional responses and attitudes, as well as my lack of knowledge of grammar, logic (can you have one without the other?) and the proper way to present a formal argument. It also doesn't mean that I always come to agree with them. It just means that I always check myself first, to make sure that my own processes, both emotional and rational, are in line with what is.

Brian, my only complaint against you is that you come too close to expressing moral conclusions that are based on someone's perceived lack of knowledge. I apologize for not linking to an example, but it is late and I'm tired, so I'll leave it to others to do so--at least I think there are those who see some of your statements as attacks on their virtue. If not, then I beg your pardon.

[B. Royce 0]

Unlike Carlos, I have not found this discussion bewildering. I find it immensely stimulating. I have always wanted to understand logic to the point that I could think and argue the way Brian does. He is ruthless in his logic. And honest. But I have neither the knowledge of grammar, nor schooling in logic to accomplish this.

Reading this thread has required a certain splitting of my attention. Brian is using his logic to argue his point, others are taking umbrage at a perceived aggression on his part. Brian is making a valid point. Those who take umbrage at "complicated arguments" are expressing something besides an answer to his argument. Frustration is evident on both sides. The cause of the frustration is, as I see it, in each individual's knowledge of logic, and here I mean in the formal sense. While I think that everyone here endeavors to always be rational, knowledge of the formal logic required for the clearest thinking is sometimes lacking to one degree or another. I know it is with me. It can be frustrating trying to wrap my mind around an argument when I'm not sure of the logic involved. But that is my problem, and with Brian, I see it as an opportunity to listen to someone who can help me attain my goal to focus and think properly.

I honestly don't think that Brian is being belligerent or playing gotcha. I think he is focusing on arguing what is said. His manner is abrupt and without social flourishes, which can wear on a frustrated mind. I understand this and have felt it myself. This has nothing to do with the validity of his argument. For me personally, it is the expanding frustration of the participants that causes my own impatience. These are emotional responses (and very human ), however, and I recognize them as such.

I'm not sure what the answer is. What I do know is that I have learned the most from the most demanding among us. Stephen forced me to shed a certain complacency I had accepted, and to focus on my own argument. Burgess Laughlin, who used to frustrate me no end, forced me to make sure I defined my terms. Brian forces me to pay attention to my own sloppy formulations, and to what others are actually saying. All have taught me to raise my standards, all to the good. This doesn't mean that I didn't have to first question, and deal with, my own emotional responses and attitudes, as well as my lack of knowledge of grammar, logic (can you have one without the other?) and the proper way to present a formal argument. It also doesn't mean that I always come to agree with them. It just means that I always check myself first, to make sure that my own processes, both emotional and rational, are in line with what is.

Brian, my only complaint against you is that you come too close to expressing moral conclusions that are based on someone's perceived lack of knowledge. I apologize for not linking to an example, but it is late and I'm tired, so I'll leave it to others to do so--at least I think there are those who see some of your statements as attacks on their virtue. If not, then I beg your pardon.

Great post, Janet. I, too, have not found this thread "bewildering" or "dragging on". Reading Brian's posts is always a mentally sharpening experience. His love of correct logic, no matter how firmly expressed, is not a vice to be condemned, but a virtue to be praised.

[JRoberts 0]

I have a challenge (really...I'd be interested in finding this out).

I have read this entire thread, and have seen no progress (or very, very little) being made. Would somebody else who sees such progression please provide a short reconstruction of this thread, connecting the dots?

Remember, just because something was created for a good purpose does not mean that it will be used as such.

[Free Capitalist 0]

See if this helps make the point clear. Take your green cheese example again. You claim "The moon is made of green cheese" and I respond: "That statement is false. The moon is made of rock, not green cheese." It would be both irrational and unjust for you to claim: "You are wrong. I meant to say 'The moon is NOT made of green cheese." In this case it is the listener who is RIGHT. It is the speaker who is wrong. To claim that the listener is wrong for identifying the facts of reality correctly (both what was said and its relation to existence) is grossly unfair!

Brian, this is another case of what appears to me stacking the example in your favor. There is no question that the listener is right, because the speaker's point is self evident. But imagine the speaker said something like the following about the moon, about cheese, and about green:

"The perforated miscoloration of the Moon's identified adjudicated association, when not actively identified in misapplied terms, points to the datum possessing the necessary qualifications that would make a metaphysico/ontological proposition right and accurate. Green cheese, participating in the non-null set of such metaphysico/ontological attributions, doubtless possesses within its own necessary characteristics the affected quality that would make coloring of the miscoloration not only possible, but necessary."

Let's imagine someone made an easy-to-read and very clear example like that. Now can you tell me with 100% certainty that what the speaker said was that moon is made from green cheese? I mean it seems like that's what it may say, but it is so unclear that you are much better off assuming you misunderstand the speaker, and asking for clarification, than jumping to conclusion that it must mean whatever you've identified it to mean. Even I have no idea what the above paragraph is really trying to say. Nor am I saying the speaker's fault is always at being obscure and unclear. Sometimes in difficult topics, a valid argument may be made in obscure terms, and you should follow it up with the speaker rather than assuming every argument you find wrong is of the simple 'moon is made of green cheese type', and proceed to criticize it and the author accordingly.

[Carlos 0]

Unlike Carlos, I have not found this discussion bewildering.

The reason that I find it bewildering is that I would bet that 999 out of a 1000 average, non-philosophical, people walking down the street could have read these posts and grasped the difference between what is proper and what isn't (in this context), what is personal and what isn't, what is rude and what isn't, etc.

Or to put it another way, we are taking probably one of the simplest issues in the world and arguing it endlessly with tortured logical examples, involving diagramming sentences and obscure abstract examples.

To me this would be like publishing a 50 page long paper in a Philosophy Journal where I analyzed the Epistemological implications and content of saying "John went to the store because he knew they had grapes" vs "John went to the store because he thought they had grapes".

[Carlos 0]

His love of correct logic, no matter how firmly expressed, is not a vice to be condemned, but a virtue to be praised.

His capacity for logical reasoning is not what is under question here, and is not what is being condemned as a vice. It is what he directs his logic at, whether it be the person or the topic.

[Free Capitalist 0]

His capacity for logical reasoning is not what is under question here, and is not what is being condemned as a vice. It is what he directs his logic at, whether it be the person or the topic.

For disclosure, I don't know whom Jordan includes as those who condemn anything as a vice here. I do not condemn a vice here, and am perfectly capable of expressing myself if I indeed were. It's not clear from the grammar, but Jordan includes only himself in that description.

My opinion is that Brian's approach is mistaken, and my posts here are trying to address that mistake. A good number of people have privately expressed frustration with his method of posting, and my point here is simply to try to address that.

[Free Capitalist 0]

"but I hope Jordan includes" is the idea.

[B. Royce 0]

Unlike Carlos, I have not found this discussion bewildering.

The reason that I find it bewildering is that I would bet that 999 out of a 1000 average, non-philosophical, people walking down the street could have read these posts and grasped the difference between what is proper and what isn't (in this context), what is personal and what isn't, what is rude and what isn't, etc.

Or to put it another way, we are taking probably one of the simplest issues in the world and arguing it endlessly with tortured logical examples, involving diagramming sentences and obscure abstract examples.

To me this would be like publishing a 50 page long paper in a Philosophy Journal where I analyzed the Epistemological implications and content of saying "John went to the store because he knew they had grapes" vs "John went to the store because he thought they had grapes".

The problem with this post is that it draws attention to the person of the speaker with its rather pompous, unverifiable opening statement. The second statement speaks of "diagramming sentences", which is overblown exaggeration. The third statement is more exaggeration, the purpose of which is to ridicule the length and manner of the thread. To me, this is worthless nonsense, serving no proper purpose.