I agree, William, that your version is a quicker and more appropriate way of dealing with such a person than to engage him in conversation and try to make philosophical points. The only advantage my version has is that it allows other rationales to come out and be dealt with. Some people do think the Declaration of Independence is only refering to Americans, not all humans, and some people do think those words about the equality of all men don't really mean anything now. They were just nice sounding words to put in a document at the time of our revolutionary war. And, relativism is a popular theory which needs to be refuted, not just shouted down. In the early seventies, people who defended the principles for which America stands would be seen as dogmatic conservatives who wrap themselves in the flag etc. I was trying to show how racism and relativism could be refuted with logic, not just indignation and force.

bis bald,

Nick

Sergeant 1st Class: ( A soldier, Vietnam veteran, comes into the bar and speaks to the bartender, also a Vietnam veteran. ) Hey, you know those gooks in Vietnam? We should have nooked them 'til they glowed. It's not like killing humans. Did you see how they lived, sheetmetal tents and so farth? Killing Asians is almost like killing fish.

Nick: How about you shut the fuck up about 'Asians,' huh? I'm part Asian, remember? If you are just trying to bait me, it won't work.

Sergeant 1st Class: They bombed Pearl Harbor and smiled at us all the while with their slanted eyes and buck teeth. We did nuke them a little. Should have wiped them off the planet. The Chinks too. Gimme another Bushmills, slant.

Nick: You are cut off, soldier.

Sergeant 1st Class: Ah, what are you, un-American or something? Why would you have sympathy for those yellow skinned meatballs?

Nick: You wouldn't understand, just like you don't understand what we fight against. You took an oath to defend the principles for which your country stands. Now you drunkenly spout racist bullshit. I don't have to serve you, buddy. Get the fuck out of here. Now.

WSS

...you are trying to poisen the well for other people as it was poisened for you by someone else.

Notice how you refused to answer two direct questions I asked you in my last post. Does that mean you are acting in bad faith?

Why not recommend to others that they read my posts and decide for themselves if I am worth debating? Are you afraid they might come to their own conclusions?

bis bald,

Nick

You can't debate with me on the issues, so you set me up to be banned for acting in bad faith.

That's utterly untrue; I was merely warning people not to waste their time debating you, as others had warned me (oh, that I had listened at the time).

This site really needs an 'ignore poster' button.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Have you ever heard bigots use words like 'absolute', hypotheticals','construct' and 'evolve'? I have. The bigot I had in mind was actually an E-7 Seargent. After I spoke with him, he was concerned that his statments be confined to the bar. They could have ruined his chances of promotion in the military. Not all bigots are red necks.

bis bald,

Nick

I didn't say you were trying to restart the discussion. I said you are picking at it again.

Yes, please follow the links and judge. Also, notice that most other people I speak with, including Leonid, routinely refuse to answer direct questions of mine. If that is enough to charge one with bad faith, then charge them with bad faith also. Is it possible you can be that fair with me?

Still, I claim I did answer your question more than many others have answered many of my questions. It may not be enough to satisfy you, but that's not my problem.

Notice also that I did even back off of one of my claims earlier in that discussion and allow you to win a point. Would I have done that if I were acting in bad faith? I was trying to be honest.

People may not judge you to be lying. That doesn't mean you aren't. I am the enemy on this board. People may see what they want.

You can't debate with me on the issues, so you set me up to be banned for acting in bad faith. Nice tactic. It is not good faith.

bis bald,

Nick

I didn't try to restart the discussion - I merely raised it as an example of you refusing to answer a direct question.

If you think you acted in good faith throughout that discussion, why object to me linking to it here? If you are right, people will follow those links, read the posts, and judge me to be lying. Surely, if you are confident that you're right, you should be encouraging that?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

was always a bit surprised the 'bigot' started out using slang terms before switching to words such as 'absolute', 'hypotheticals', 'construct' and 'evolve'.

I started that thread. I said what I wanted to say. I answered your questions, even when I had no obligation to do so. You kept accusing me of not answering you. I disagreed. I don't think I was not acting in good faith. You agree to allow the discussion to come to an end, yet you come back and pick at it again. I don't think that is an act of good faith. You do not act in good faith, Duncan.

Nick

My claims are not unsupported. Yours are. Even this one. You make accusations and fail to support them with reason and evidence. I am trying to pull you out of the gutter, but that's where you want to stay. Present your case premise by premise. Stop insulting me.

Nick

Leonid, don't bother with Nick; he doesn't act in good faith, as he has demonstrated on this thread. You will wind up wasting a lot of your time for no gain whatsoever.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Leonid
"Which claims of mine are unsupported? Be specific."

All of them.I cannot respond to the stream of baseless assumptions. When you run out of arguments you resort to insults.I'm not prepare to descend to this gutter level of your argument.

(Nick)1."That was funny. It had nothing to do with anything we've been talking about, but it kind'a reminds me of how you confuse things I tell you."

(Lenoid)It has everything to do with everything we've been discussing. I brought it to demonstrate that logic which is divorced from reality and the failure to recognize essentials is a joke. Pity you didn't get it.Bigotry in the broad sense is also failure to recognize essentials as you do by combining Objectivism and Existentalism which contradict each other on each and every issue.What is lost here is integrity and that is bigotry.Can you tell now on which ground you call me bigot?

(Nick)You posted a funny joke. I doubt you created it. You are not that talented. You presented it just to try and make fun of me. It’s one way of trying to refute me. This is what bigots do. Instead of sticking to reason and logic, they evade and try to ridicule their opponents. They make unsupported accusations, as you do in almost every post, and they often accuse people who disagree with them of being dishonest or not having integrity. Sound familiar? Notice that I never called you a bigot without giving you also the grounds on which I made that inference. Pity you don’t see these things. Bigots have huge blind spots.

(Nick)2."Premises are the statements from which conclusions are drawn. If they are false, the argument may still be valid but the truth of the conclusion is not certain. It may, however, still be true by accident."

(Leonid)If they are false who needs conclusions drawn from them? I have no use for accidental truths as you probably have no use for broken watch which still shows right time twice a day.I wish you ,as Rand once said, good premises.

(Nick)That’s a good analogy. However, it by-passes the point I made that arguments can still be valid even with false premises. Another point is that even with true premises, an argument can be invalid, and this would also mean that the conclusion is not certain. To refute a deductive argument, one must challenge one of the premises or demonstrate that the argument is invalid. If you could lay your argument out in premises and conclusion, we can examine the truth of the premises and the over-all validity. That way, perhaps we can avoid the arguments by insult and evasion.

(Nick)3."Is religion true or false?"

(Lenoid)It's arbitrary and we discussed that before.

(Nick)That’s an evasion.

(Nick)4." I don't think you know much about Existentialism except what Peikoff says about it, and he is terribly wrong. "

(Lenoid)And how do you know that? I didn't say anything about Existentialism except to repeat your own statements and to draw obvious conclusions.Can you prove your claim that Peikoff is terribly wrong about it? If you cannot then you are the bigot in the bar.

(Nick)You don’t understand my statements about Existentialism. Your conclusions are obviously those of someone who doesn’t know anything about it. I did demonstrate, in my Alice series, that Peikoff was likewise wrong about what he said about Existentialism. You should read the later chapters. Of course, bigots don’t want to learn new things, especially things which may challenge their own limited views.

(Nick)5."People once said Heraclites and Parmenides contradicted each other. Plato proved they could be combined. People once said empiricism and rationalism contradict each other. Kant proved they could be combined. People once said thesis and anti-thesis contradict each other. Hegel proved they could be combined."

(Lenoid)Plato,Kant,Hegel- Nick, this is perfectly suitable company of idealists and mystics for you and your philosophy. Enjoy it if you can.Just don't bring Rand along with you..She'd turn in her grave like a fan.And she really didn't deserve it.

(Nick)Rather than refuting people, Bigots often just call them names, like you did above. Call them idealists and mystics and don’t bother with them anymore. Rand did combine her mechanistic model of an objective reality run on cause and effect with a mystic element of a first cause consciousness which is axiomatic, not proven. Yes, this is blaspheme to some people, to Objectivists not willing to consider anything negative about Objectivism. They are like religious fanatics not willing to hear anything negative about their religion. They are bigots.

BTW, can you spell Existentialism?

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
1."That was funny. It had nothing to do with anything we've been talking about, but it kind'a reminds me of how you confuse things I tell you."
It has everything to do with everything we've been discussing. I brought it to demonstrate that logic which is divorced from reality and the failure to recognize essentials is a joke. Pity you didn't get it.Bigotry in the broad sense is also failure to recognize essentials as you do by combining Objectivism and Existentalism which contradict each other on each and every issue.What is lost here is integrity and that is bigotry.Can you tell now on which ground you call me bigot?

2."Premises are the statements from which conclusions are drawn. If they are false, the argument may still be valid but the truth of the conclusion is not certain. It may, however, still be true by accident."

If they are false who needs conclusions drawn from them? I have no use for accidental truths as you probably have no use for broken watch which still shows right time twice a day.I wish you ,as Rand once said, good premises.

3."Is religion true or false?"
It's arbitrary and we discussed that before.

4." I don't think you know much about Existentialism except what Peikoff says about it, and he is terribly wrong. "

And how do you know that? I didn't say anything about Existentialism except to repeat your own statements and to draw obvious conclusions.Can you prove your claim that Peikoff is terribly wrong about it? If you cannot then you are the bigot in the bar.

5."People once said Heraclites and Parmenides contradicted each other. Plato proved they could be combined. People once said empiracism and rationalism contradict each other. Kant proved they could be combined. People once said thesis and anti-thesis contradict each other. Hegel proved they could be combined."

Plato,Kant,Hegel- Nick, this is perfectly suitable company of idealists and mystics for you and your philosophy. Enjoy it if you can.Just don't bring Rand along with you..She'd turn in her grave like a fan.And she really didn't deserve it.
P.S. Cannot you spell "empiricism"?

" I did say recently that i did believe in some essence before existence, that humans are humans in Asia or Spokane, that this gives them human rights. "
What it is-is and what it isn't-isn't. You cannot be selective in these matters,you cannot be Objectivist or Existentialist when it suits you. That is real bigotry.You cannot enjoy both worlds for they contradict each other in every single aspect.

You don't know what you are talking about, Leonid. I don't think you know much about Existentialism except what Peikoff says about it, and he is terribly wrong. People once said Heraclites and Parmenides contradicted each other. Plato proved they could be combined. People once said empiracism and rationalism contradict each other. Kant proved they could be combined. People once said thesis and anti-thesis contradict each other. Hegel proved they could be combined. NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism combines Objectivism and Existentialism, adding a few other isms. It's an eclectic theory. It's the Jeet Kun Do of Philosophy.

"And, stop pretending to know something about logic"
You divorce logic from reality.You are the one who realy thinks that logic is new God. Your logic reminds me another bar story:
Chinese and Jewish guys are drinking in the bar and discussing WW2. After 5th round of drinks the Jewish guy suddenly slaps the Chinese in the face.
Chinese: Are you crazy? What that was for?
Jew: That was for Pearl Harbor.
Chinese: Idiot! I'm not Japanese,I'm Chinese
Jew" Chinese,Japanese,all of you are the same
After few more drinks Chinese suddenly slaps the Jew
Jew: What that was for?
Chinese: For Titanic
Jew:You are nuts! It was an iceberg.
Chinese: Iceberg,Izenberg.Fineberg,Rabinovic-all of you are the same.
If that funny then your claim that A is A is just logical construction without any connection with reality is also bad joke.

That was funny. It had nothing to do with anything we've been talking about, but it kind'a reminds me of how you confuse things I tell you.

"you evaded telling me what "premises" are"

Nick,I know what premises are.If you don't know look it up. I'm not your dictionary.

I know what they are. You don't. You constantly use terms about which you have no understanding. Premises are the statements from which conclusions are drawn. If they are false, the argument may still be valid but the truth of the conclusion is not certain. It may, however, still be true by accident. You say the premises of religion are false. That still doesn't mean religion is invalid, and it doesn't mean religion is certainly false. It may be true by accident. Is religion true or false? What is its premises, according to you, and what are its conclusions?

You called me a bigot. Please provide the premises for that conclusion. Don't just make unsupported accusations. That's something the bigot at the bar would do.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
" I did say recently that i did believe in some essence before existence, that humans are humans in Asia or Spokane, that this gives them human rights. "
What it is-is and what it isn't-isn't. You cannot be selective in these matters,you cannot be Objectivist or Existentialist when it suits you. That is real bigotry.You cannot enjoy both worlds for they contradict each other in every single aspect.

"And, stop pretending to know something about logic"
You divorce logic from reality.You are the one who realy thinks that logic is new God. Your logic reminds me another bar story:
Chinese and Jewish guys are drinking in the bar and discussing WW2. After 5th round of drinks the Jewish guy suddenly slaps the Chinese in the face.
Chinese: Are you crazy? What that was for?
Jew: That was for Pearl Harbor.
Chinese: Idiot! I'm not Japanese,I'm Chinese
Jew" Chinese,Japanese,all of you are the same
After few more drinks Chinese suddenly slaps the Jew
Jew: What that was for?
Chinese: For Titanic
Jew:You are nuts! It was an iceberg.
Chinese: Iceberg,Izenberg.Fineberg,Rabinovic-all of you are the same.
If that funny then your claim that A is A is just logical construction without any connection with reality is also bad joke.

"you evaded telling me what "premises" are"

Nick,I know what premises are.If you don't know look it up. I'm not your dictionary.

Whenever an argument reaches a point where you might have to consider a little criticism, you stone wall everyone with 'I don't live to please you' or, 'you guys are bigots!' and then insinuate that we're not capable of debating and we refuse to learn anything. You're what some scholars might classify as a 'petty douche bag.'

I don't think that's the case. Some things are worth arguing about, and some things aren't. I do not back down from debates worth debating, and I think I've demonstrated that on this and several other boards. If you don't see that, then you've got a problem. It is just not my life's goal to impress every jerk who criticizes me. You have a right to your opinion. You're what some scholars might classify as 'not worth it.'

You have not encountered anything even close to your red neck on these boards.

I think Craig Biddle, who advocates dropping bombs on crowded mosques, is close to the bigot at the bar. People who agree with him and those who have read his words and do not condemn him are just as bad. The bigot at the bar, if you will notice, is not an ignorant red neck. He has a view which many people have, that killing certain people who don't live like Americans, is not like killing Americans. And, he defends it with relativism, a popular philosophy. I hear this almost every day among the high school and middle school kids with whom I work. It is amazing to me that you think the bigot is not a real character. He is all too real, here and in many places.

You see what you want to see.

No, I don't want to see bigots.

You come with a preconceived notion that everyone here is religiously dedicated to objectivism and afraid of any argument against their philosophy.

No, I may say that to specific individuals with whom I am talking at certain times, but I don't apply the same judgment to everyone here. I know that some people are not orthodox Objectivists and some are. Most are not philosophically inclined at all. There are many boards where I am not allowed to say anything bad about Objectivism at all, but I am tolerated here. People are not afraid of me, but they don't seem to care about my criticisms of Objectivism. There are people here who seem to think all Muslims are evil, that dropping bombs on crowded mosques is a good thing.

No matter how much patience you're met with you won’t let go of that notion and when people finally get aggravated with your childishness you consider your image of SOLOists as short tempered ignoramuses to be validated. Get off your little high horse.

Again, that is not my notion. It is your notion of my notion, no matter how patient I've been with you. When I refuse to get defensive, you accuse me of stonewalling and call me a douche bag. If you're going to get aggravated at me, go ahead. It's childish. I'll just hold my temper and let you vent.

I have no problem with the bar tenders views but he's talking to an imaginary foe. That's troubling, he needs professional help.

Whatever.

bis bald,

Nick

Whenever an argument reaches a point where you might have to consider a little criticism, you stone wall everyone with 'I don't live to please you' or, 'you guys are bigots!' and then insinuate that we're not capable of debating and we refuse to learn anything. You're what some scholars might classify as a 'petty douche bag.'

You have not encountered anything even close to your red neck on these boards. You see what you want to see. You come with a preconceived notion that everyone here is religiously dedicated to objectivism and afraid of any argument against their philosophy. No matter how much patience you're met with you won’t let go of that notion and when people finally get aggravated with your childishness you consider your image of SOLOists as short tempered ignoramuses to be validated. Get off your little high horse.

I have no problem with the bar tenders views but he's talking to an imaginary foe. That's troubling, he needs professional help.  

Oh and thanks for the props Landon.

There is no point in arguing with you about whether or not the dialogue format is best for what I was saying. You can think what you want. Also,the bigot character is not as uncommon as you seem to think, but think what you want. I don't care.

bis bald,

Nick

That audio file is hilarious.

Nick,

Have to agree the format isn't very good for what you're trying to accomplish. I also agree with Matty that Lineberry aside I don't see much of your bigot character here at SOLO.

Would have been a better presentation if you would've just kept it a straight essay. Personal experience aside. That said, in the context of where you're posting it and the implications it bears, it kind of smacks of arguement from intimidation.

Current context and execution aside, the core ideas seem like some of the better ones I've read from you.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

You are the one who reads selectively, leaves discussions, and refuses to learn. Look up the definition of a bigot. I did say recently that i did believe in some essence before existence, that humans are humans in Asia or Spokane, that this gives them human rights. It is within these parameters that they have freedom.

You have advocated the relativists position by saying that knowledge is contextual. This is just another way of saying knowledge is relative.

And, stop pretending to know something about logic. You didn't know what "validity" was, and you evaded telling me what "premises" are. You use these words but have no idea what you are talking about, just as you have no idea what my philosophy is about, yet you judge it and condemn it. That's what the bigot at the bar would do.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid

From what I've gathered reading your posts,Nick,you are relativist. You even mentioned that our perception is relative,and things don't have any identity. As you've said existence before essence.If nothing have any essence,then what it's matter who kills whom and why? And by what means you're are going to decide who is right and who is wrong? By means of unsound arguments,formal logic which is completly unrelated to reality? Move to other side of the bar,Nick,to the bigot's side.

I think I have met a few who could identify with the bigot. One can often tell when I think that. People give up on me, insult me and then leave the discussion. I may have said something to them like,"Yes, that's what the bigot at the bar would do."

bis bald,

Nick

When you say you've debated people like this on the internet are you talking about SOLO? Because from what I've read no one her sounds remotely like your ignorant red neck.

EDIT: Save Elijah, who's back at it again.

I wasn't trying to develop characters here. Characters don't need to be developed in little dialogues like this. It is just an essay in an untraditional format. The reasoning and form is influenced by Plato.

I did take the situation from my own experience. I was a bartender in Germany at the end of the Vietnam war, after I returned from it, and I did meet people like this.

Some people think that the bigot would probably not get into relativism, that it would be too sophisticated for him. He would probably not understand and just lose interest a lot earlier.

The bigot, though, could also be any of several people I've met on the internet who debate with me. Those debates, if you check them out, are not inauthentic.

I feel a little like entering a Nick Otani sound alike contest and losing to the immitators.

bis bald,

Nick

Is that it doesn't sound like some old bigot talking to a bar tender. half way through it just becomes you talking to an imaginary caricature. There was no point in writing this because the characters aren't developed at all and the setting of a bar adds nothing to the point you're trying to make. You may as well have just written in essay. I've done a quick dramatic performance of your little skit and uploaded the audio file. Notice how silly it sounds when the two blue collar war veterans start waxing philosophical. Putting your own words in to the mouths of people who would never talk like you does not an impressive satire make, Nick.

Actualy using nuclear weapons in Vietnam would have saved lives,the large concentration of conventional forces immediatly north of the DMZ presented an apropriate target for nuclear weapons.42 percent of American casualties occured in the top two provences in South Vietnam due to the proximity to North Vietnamese logistics support,thats just my five cents on the issue of using nuclear weapons in Vietnam anyway

Are you accusing me of something? Please make your case. Try to use a few paragraphs.

bis bald,

Nick

That wasn't very authentic.