|
About Forums and Truth—Part 2
by Reginald Firehammer
This is the second part of two; the first part ought to be read first.
An Objective Issue
What I am about to say does not change in any way what I said in the previous part of this article. I make no recommendations whatsoever about SOLO for others. I was a member for some time, as anyone who bothers to look at all I posted there can see. I think others might enjoy it as I did.
There is one aspect of SOLO that everyone has a right to know, however, that no one else is probably going to make explicit, but is very important if you take objectivity and truth seriously. Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand developed and named, holds the truth in the highest regard. For an Objectivist, no intentional evasion of the truth, no faking of reality, and no lie is tolerated. There is nothing worse, nothing more evil, more immoral, than a liar, to an Objectivist. The last "O" in SOLO, stands for "Objectivists."
For those who hold the truth is their primary value, SOLO is going to present some difficulty. At least three members of that forum use lies as their chief method of operation. Two are Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden, and the proof is available to anyone who chooses to examine the evidence. Just read the book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens
The other is Lindsay Perigo. Except for those things which no one lies about, nothing which that man says can be known to be true without verification. Anyone who chooses may go back to my articles on SOLO in which many of his prevarications are documented. But I can save you the trouble, because it is such a common practice, examples abound in almost everything he says and writes. Here are two very recent blatant examples.
Because No One Checks
I've already addressed and dismissed as a possible misunderstanding the false accusation about my claiming, ever, that I was "banned phor opposing homosexuality." In that same post is another accusation which is definitely not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate twisting of the truth. (There is another interesting twist to Mr. Perigo's method—when lying about someone, he almost always includes an accusation of dishonesty or lying against the person he is misrepresenting.) Here is the lie:
"On the matter of homosexuality, Phirehammer had demonstrated his dishonesty by claiming not to judge homosexuals as immoral while likening homosexual urges to impulses to steal and commit arson ... as soon as you *acted* on them, you *did* become immoral!"
[http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0688.shtml#17]
The following is a long post to the Mr. Perigo. It addresses some of the attempts to pervert what I said at that time and contains the passage he has twisted out of it obvious intended meaning. It is not necessary to read the whole post—I have bolded the passage in question; but it is good post and will give you a feeling for the kind of person you will be dealing with in Mr. Perigo.
|
Linz, When I pointed out you are the only person anywhere on SOLO ever to say, "either man is volitional or not" means that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being," even though you attributed it to the unidentified, "other side," I explained what the "other side" does say is this: everything a human being does is by conscious choice.
I explained that assuming you either misunderstood something I said, or didn't read it correctly. I know there is another possibility, but I will certainly not make that all too obvious accusation. I think you are mistaken, but not dishonest.
I then asked, to be sure I understood what your point was, "Linz, are some of things you do not by choice?"
To that you made the amazing remark: "This is precisely why I now view this writer as dishonest."
You say something which is blatantly untrue about me, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. I ask you a simple question, which implies nothing at all, and you call me dishonest.
Then you say, like God himself, reading my mind and stating with arbitrary finality, "He knows the argument is not about the *actions* of a gay person, but the orientation itself, which, I repeat, is *not* open to choice."
But I know no such thing at all. My whole argument is that a person's, "orientation," or "inclination," to do or be anything (a thief, a nymphomaniac, a pedophile, a homosexual) is irrelevant. Only what one chooses matters. It is only one's actual actions, in thought and deed that has any part of defining who and what an individual is. A person tempted to steal is not a thief unless he yields to the temptation (his orientation) and actually steals.
Then you said, "A gay person *could* act as Regi would wish ...," once again, reading into my mind what is not there, but is certainly in yours, because you wrote it. The only "wish" I have for all men is that they be free to live their lives any way they choose without the interference of any other man. I have never suggested I wish gays would act in any particular way, except in the general sense that I wish all men would, for their own sakes, refrain from self-destructive behavior, without regard to which behavior that would be.
If you can find anywhere, on SOLO, in my book, or anyplace else where I ever said or suggested anyone, ever, should, "live a life of abstinence or pretend-heterosexuality," I will apologize for it and repudiate it here and now. If you cannot show me that, I will be severely tempted to change my mind about that benefit of the doubt I am still extending you.
"... such self-denial or fraud would be entirely consistent with Regi's intrinsicist/mystic view of morality," you said. If you want to cover up a fault, the quickest way to do it is to accuse your opponent of that fault, whether it is true or not. But, of course I know you would not do that, would you?
You certainly aren't calling my insistence that human beings have a specific nature that determines what is good and bad for us, like a specific kind of stomach that precludes poison being a good thing to eat "intrinsicist," are you? You wouldn't be labeling my insistence that one use the best reason of which they are capable when choosing their values and how they choose to live their life "mystic," would you?
What would you call a view that says what a person is, is determined by some mysterious unknown something; that a person is not, as Ayn Rand said, "a being of self-made soul," but a creature whose identity is determined by genes and environmental influences or something else? That would not be intrinsicist would it?
And what do you call the view that says one has knowledge that is not derived objectively by reason, but is, "just there?" You wouldn't call that a priorism? And what do you call the view that says there is knowledge that does not require the mind? You wouldn't call the mysticism? I call the view, that says "the body (the "heart," "electricity," "sexual chemistry" etc.) has reasons the mind knows not of," the grossest of subjectivist mysticism, on the basis of which any outrage may be justified, and apparently is. ....
[http://solohq.com/Forum/
ArticleDiscussions/0777_3.shtml#65]
|
My point (in the bolded paragraph above) had nothing to do with morality at all, and morality is never mentioned. I was addressing what determine's an individual's identity. The list (a thief, a nymphomaniac, a pedophile, a homosexual) had no particular significance and could have inluded a pianist, a cook, and a sky jumper, and would have had the same meaning. It was only a post on a forum, not an essay, and the list was created off-the-cuff. This is so obvious, Perigo's obfuscation is either intentional or he suffers from some mental defect that prevents him from understanding the simplest of analogies.
He Really Should Check
The following prevarication is almost embarrassing. It is not only completely untrue, but its motive is so transparent, even a child could see through it. Most embarrassing of all is that the facts are actually true, someone was just as offensive and insensitive as Perigo claims—it just happens that it was not one of those he attributed it to, but one of his own "members in good standing."
Here is Perigo's accusation:
|
... They are moral pygmies who would embarrass the crassest Christian fundamentalist with the boorish bigotry of their ignorance. They are the sexual Ku Klux Klanners who would insist on cat-calling a transgender person "Mr" precisely because of the pain they knew that would cause, and not rest till they'd drummed her out. [Emphasis mine.] We've had our share of them—God knows what brought them here. I don't "pity" them however—I hold them in contempt for their wilful contribution to human suffering. It's good that they've all repaired to the phascist swamp, where they can buzz around like mosquitoes with malaria for their own inverted edification.
http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0688_2.shtml#51
|
Just who are these crass, cat-calling, Ku-Klux-Klanner, contributors to human suffering living in a fascist swamp? Well, here is the post that caused the entire incident to which Mr Perigo is refers:
|
..., I agree. I could care less about the pretentious claptrap that Mr R... likes to comment on. What hit my nerve, was the fact that Mr R... consistantly (sic) bashes Objectivism, and sings the praises of hedonism, extreme leftist politics, and new age theism. For the most part he has gotten a pass by everyone (including myself), because he bashes politely and with a nice play on words from time to time.
But I have grown tired of his Objectivism pounding, and his preaching hedonistic nonsense. I have also grown tired of his having to remind us in everyone of his f...ing post that he is a high class prostitute, with a tone of, "isn't that just the cutest thing". I don't buy that crap for a second.
Nor is his selling of ass a particular virtue in my code of values. He can sell it all he wants, but it's past time to shut the f... up about it. Besides, the amount of time he spends on this board and his 'war and peace' length post, sure as hell indicates a lack of buyers.
..., had you or I made some of the same statements about Objectivism (and objectivist) that Mr R... has, we would have been challenged right away and with great 'bluntness'. Oh well, I just thought it was time that the so-called 'courtesan' be called on his nonsense.
G...
[http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions
/0944_1.shtml#23]
|
The Ironic Truth
It turns out the, "phascist swamp," where members become so offensive to each other they drive each other away is SOLO itself. Whereas, that other place, where all views are tolerated and all arguments, so long as they are made without personal insult, are accepted, seems to have none of these problems. At least one transgender member is very active there, and is so comfortable, frequently starts her own threads. If anyone happens to see Ms. R... around, by the way, tell her she's welcome at the other horrible place. Most will disagree with her and explain why, but she won't be called names, and will be addressed as she chooses, and treated with the dignity every human being deserves— and she won't be lied to or lied about.
—(06/10/05)
[Discuss This Article.]
|
