North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › The Collectivist nature of Internet Boards!

The Collectivist nature of Internet Boards!

A former member
Post #: 1
Self-Proclaimed Objectivist who is new to this board. Most boards start with great altruistic / collectivist intentions but usually end up splintering off into subgroups due to fear, guilt, and pity.

Noticed the administrator wanted to "ex-communicate" a potential mystic due to his distortion of objectivist principles.

Reminds me when Paul prayed to god (little g) begging him to remove the heckler / thorn in the flesh from his congregation. Little g told him "my grace was sufficient for thee."

Probably a bad example for this crowd. I cringed when I wrote it! Unfortunately, the situation in this group mimics the mystical situation in the book of Acts. The mystical books that compose the bible exist. The moral code of the witchdoctor exist. Existance exist. A is A.

Hmmmmmm...........What would Howard Roark Do?

Roark would think of Rearden.

Many times, Hank felt guilt by accepting the moral codes of the mystics in his personal life. This even carried through in his relationship with Dagny. It took the loss of his Intellectual Property for him to decided that his moral codes guiding is personal life should be as hard and uncompromising as the formula for his metal. His moral code was eventually fortified via his reasoning mind and value structure.

Note that Hank's moral code was not reinforced by physically shutting the slack-jawed mouth of every looter he came in contact with.

When your "mystical sheep in Rand's clothing" begins his supernatural bleetings. Every student of Objectiivism should quote the chapter and verse of any piece of knowledge that validates his or her reality and epistomology. Ayn Rand didn't try to silence the confused. She took them head-on, through reason.

I say, don't retreat through force. Fight with reason. Think. Judge. Act. Be the God "Big G" of your life.

This post was created for my own selfish purposes. I am curious to see if my view is "one small voice" in a collective pool of objectivist.

On a seperate note, can the marriage of a man and woman be considered a collective?
A former member
Post #: 17
Think. Judge. Act.

The mods here did all three. He was asked to leave because he misrepresented the philosophy.

I think a better question would be, what would Rand do?

She'd have broken ties with him. In this case, since it is clearly stated when you join these boards what their purpose is, when you repeatedly undermine that purpose, you rightfully will be asked to leave.

He broke the rules so he had to leave. It is as simple as that.
Sherry
SherryTX
Plano, TX
Post #: 115
In order for a marriage to be a "collective" it would mean that the neither person in the manage would have individual rights. I don't consider MY marriage to be a collective, and I certainly don't think my husband does.

Now, I have known some people in those types of marriages, sadly, but they definitely were not Objectivists.

I don't know what your knowledge of Rand's work is, but if you want a better understanding as to what is Collective, etc., I suggestion reading her non fiction as well as her fiction. Her book Virture of Selfishness contain several that I have found very helpful.

Welcome to the board.

(edited to correct spelling error)
Lathanar
Lathanar
Dallas, TX
Post #: 69
It not an easy thing to pass judgement when the full context of the situation is not known, nor the conversations that took place outside the realm of this forum. I will not even begin to try to speak for Todd or try to explain why he made the decision he did, I think he explained quite elegantly on this forum, but I am complete agreement in the action he took. If you wish to use the example of Roarke, I think Roarke would ask Toohey to kindly leave his house.

As for marriage being a collective, to me a marriage is two people that share values and love each other because of those values and wish to face the world together. If it is this, simply two people in agreement about their values, I think that would go against what definition Rand would have used for a collective. If it were two people that believed they could not function without the other, a bond of co-dependence where they can no longer consider themselves an individual but only a couple, then yes, I'd consider it to be a collective.

Welcome to the forum, please feel free to join in the discussions.

- Travis
Old T.
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 220
Self-Proclaimed Objectivist ...

Proclamation heard. But on this message board, you have to demonstrate your assertions if you want us to agree with them. We can be a tough crowd. We are especially tough on Self-Proclaimed Objectivists.


Most boards start with great altruistic / collectivist intentions but usually end up splintering off into subgroups due to fear, guilt, and pity.

This sentence is unsupported. "Fear, guilt, and pity" based on what? How would "fear, guilt, and pity" cause a message board to end up splintering off into subgroups? Are you saying this NTOS board is based on great altruistic / collectivist intentions? If so, in what way?


Noticed the administrator wanted to "ex-communicate" a potential mystic due to his distortion of objectivist principles.
This is less than accurate. I think you should re-read my explanation.


... Note that Hank's moral code was not reinforced by physically shutting the slack-jawed mouth of every looter he came in contact with.
... Ayn Rand didn't try to silence the confused. She took them head-on, through reason.
I say, don't retreat through force. ...

Are you saying that we applied physical force? If so, what physical force are you talking about?


... When your "mystical sheep in Rand's clothing" begins his supernatural bleetings. Every student of Objectiivism should quote the chapter and verse of any piece of knowledge that validates his or her reality and epistomology. ...

Some of us are willing to do that. But most of us here value our own time too much to waste on more than a few bleatings. In a voluntary association, we are free to set our standards for participation. If you want to engage the bleatings, please feel free to do so on the rest of the internet -- don't you retreat behind the standards of our NTOS message board and then complain that we should have continued to engage the bleatings ad nauseam.

We will not use any force of any kind to stop you from going outside NTOS to engage with all the bleatings you want. But no-one has the right to waste our time trying to sell their non-Objectivist ideas here, either.


I am curious to see if my view is "one small voice" in a collective pool of objectivist.

The title you gave this discussion thread suggests that you include our NTOS message board as being "collectivist." Also, your phrase "a collective pool of objectivist" is grammatically unclear, but it seems to be that you are calling us a "collective" of Objectivists. That would be a contradition, and it appears meant as an insult to us.


On a seperate note, can the marriage of a man and woman be considered a collective?

Yes, if you are not happily married.


-- Todd
Edited before any other response to correct a couple of typographical errors and to add thought about title given to this discussion thread.
Chris J.
gearjammer351
Dallas, TX
Post #: 39
Consider this: this forum is for the discussion of Objectivism, or the world from an objectivist point of view. We have gathered here (electronically) because of our common beliefs. We may discuss or disagree about a variety of applications of the philosophy, or it's relevance to specific aspects of life, but we do not come to this place to entertain ideas contrary to objectivism.
Many of the members of this group would hapily debate the merits of a reason based philosophy against mysticism in any other forum, but we do not expect to debate such things within a group which is primarily for Objectivists. I am not trying to speak for others here-I just think this is an accurate assesment of the overall attitude of the group.
Dan
dbclawyer
Allen, TX
Post #: 38
I second Chris' post.
Hammad H.
user 2469690
San Marcos, TX
Post #: 12
I essentially agree with Todd's response to Parks' post.

The imperative "...don't retreat through force. Fight with reason. ..." contains a fantastic equivocation. Ayn Rand, when speaking of force and reason as being mutually opposed, was clearly speaking of the initiation of _physical force_, which paralyzes the normal (cognitive) function of the mind. This equivocation of "force" is often used in assertions to the effect that a private organization's refusal to hear or publish another's position is "censorship" just like the _government's_ initiation of _physical_ force to prevent a private individual's expression of his own views through his own resources. It is using "force" as a "package deal" (Ayn Rand's term in IOE for a concept that groups by non-essentials) and as such is a typical tool of the sophistry of the Left--and yet used here by a "self-proclaimed Objectivist."

NTOS is a private group; by excluding someone, no physical force is being initiated against him. In fact, if after someone is removed, he non-consentually attends NTOS functions, that person would be indirectly initiating physical force (the person arrives and stays by force, not by right) against the creators and/or administrators of the group.

As far as "fighting with reason" is concerned, each person has to rationally decide according to his own rational goals, endeavors and values, how much time he will spend applying reason to what (and for whom). If Todd rationally thinks that he (and others at NTOS) has spent enough time applying reason to try to correct Mr. Croft, and Mr. Croft has demonstrably violated the provisions of NTOS as indicated on the "About" page (which provisions he _has_ violated), then Todd is perfectly within his moral and political rights in removing Mr. Croft from NTOS.


--Ahmad Hassan

[AH: Edited for completeness and clarity, 5/17/06.]
Old T.
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 226
I request that we bring this discussion [regarding my removal of David Croft] to a close.

This subject involves personal relationships among us. For example, on a related discussion thread Sherry pointed out that David and his family have been her family's long-time friends. While she personally understands and supports my decision, I hope we can all understand the continued discussion cannot help but rub salt into the wound.

Our standards for participation are a work in progress. I thank each person who has expressed respectful support for or criticism of my action.

-- Todd
Powered by mvnForum

Suggested Annual Donation

$10.00 (after 6 event visits)

This covers: Supporting operating expenses and advertising for new members!

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please give any cash or check to any Organizer at an event. We also accept BitCoin: 14sioRkdEBcvvQavE4zbDbSwbsvscPAvF9 Thanks!

Your organizer will refund you if:

  • Each event may have a specific refund policy based on the nature of the event. General donations are not refundable. We may rely on any payment, so if you have any questions please ask an Organizer BEFORE making a payment!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy