|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Seeking Debate Opponents |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ben Bayer
Email: bbayer (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified!) |
22 Sep 2001
Modified: 28 Sep 2001 |
|
U of I student organization seeks anti-war speaker for public debate |
I am looking to organize a public debate on the subject of the looming war. The debate would be co-sponsored by the organization I represent, the Illinois Objectivist Club and another anti-war campus organization, such as yours.
My organization and I are supporters of the war effort, and we feel that the public would benefit from an open, rational debate on the subject, between myself and an anti war advocate. I am a graduate student in philosophy, and I would be looking for an opponent who is also a graduate student or an advanced undergraduate who is knowledgeable on the subject.
I want to emphasize that what we want to organize is a rational, fact-based debate, not a series of dueling, emotionalist oratories. We want the debate to focus on the philosophic and ethical principles involved in the question of a war of this type. The individual who would agree to such a debate would have to understand these terms.
Please, if your organization is interested in sponsoring such an event, or if you know of other organizations who would be willing to do so, please let me know, or forward this message to them. Also if you know of any particular individual who would be a suitable opponent for me in this debate, I would appreciate it if you could tell me his or her name, or if you would simply forward this message to them.
The sooner we can organize the debate, the better (for either of our causes). I would anticipate that we could draw a large number of people to such an event, the sort of thing I could even see occuring at Foellinger. So please respond to this ASAP. |
Comments
|
Why Bother? |
by Mike Lehman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2001
|
If what the "Objectivists" are looking for a fact-filled debate, they must have decided that the ridiculous assertions made in a recent letter to the editor in the Daily Illini were a failure. Although the letter was not credited directly to them, officers of the "Objectivist" Club were the main instigators behind it.
It accused those opposed to globalization as being moral supporters of terrorism. This completely ridiculous charge, particularly given the CIA's intimate involvement in the rise of Osama bin-laden and numerous other acts of terrorism, shows that the "Objectivists" usually don't bother letting the facts get in the way of their self-serving assertions. I would suggest that everyone ignore this offer.
For earlier coverage of the letter, see: |
See also:
http://urbana.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2060
|
|
Why Bother ? |
by Mike Lehman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2001
|
If what the "Objectivists" are looking for a fact-filled debate, they must have decided that the ridiculous assertions made in a recent letter to the editor in the Daily Illini were a failure. Although the letter was not credited directly to them, officers of the "Objectivist" Club were the main instigators behind it.
It accused those opposed to globalization as being moral supporters of terrorism. This completely ridiculous charge, particularly given the CIA's intimate involvement in the rise of Osama bin-laden and numerous other acts of terrorism, shows that the "Objectivists" usually don't bother letting the facts get in the way of their self-serving assertions. I would suggest that everyone ignore this offer.
(apologies if this is doubled-no display after four hours or so) |
|
Because it matters |
by Ben Bayer
bbayer (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Sep 2001
|
Mike,
You claim that my letter to the Daily Illini makes the "completely ridiculous" charge that those opposed to globalization are moral supporters of terrorism, and that such a claim so obviously evades the facts that serious "peace" advocates should ignore my debate offer.
My letter was precisely worded: "But they have lent moral aid and comfort to our enemies by their intellectual support for the same anti-capitalist, anti-freedom and anti-American ideas on which these terrorists feed. Now let them see what their ideas produce in the vast reality beyond the ivory tower."
Nowhere did I claim that opponents of globalization believe that terrorism is moral. But I did say that the ideas they advocate lend moral aid and comfort to terrorists. The point was that ideas can have unintended consequences. Sometimes they can mean more than their advocates are able or willing to accept. Sometimes it's hard to see that.
If you or any other visitors to this web site believe that your ideas do not lead to the consequences I've described, there is no better place to attempt to show that than in a public debate. But I should stress that the debate is not intended to focus on the blame for the World Trade Center disaster, but on the philosophical justification of the response.
Sincerely,
Ben Bayer |
|
Carpet Bombing Isn't Precision |
by Mike Lehman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Sep 2001
|
Ben,
I'm glad that you thought you were being precise. Unfortunately, a letter such as yours is written in a context, one of irrational passions and jingoistic solutions offered by leaders of questionable merit. Considering the threats that the IMC and those associated with it have already received, I’m afraid that most of us think you are being neither precise or funny.
The mere fact that you want to establish ANY sort linkage between what the terrorists did and what anti-globalization activists support, whether they are as you call them, "unintended consequences," or not, clearly defines the nature of the debate YOU wish to hold.
Why should any of us participate in your campaign of demonization? I don't believe there is any reason to dignify such a ridiculous (and I do believe it is ridiculous in any sort of mind, except the reptilian one your organization seeks to promote) point of view by participation in your dog and pony show.
In truth, there is a far better case to be made of a linkage between rapacious global capitalism and the events of Sept. 11. Read all about it here at IMC. But Bush told you not to go there and, like so many compliant and credulous Americans, you cast about looking for someone else to blame. Sorry, it ain't us. |
|
BTW |
by Mike Lehman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Sep 2001
|
From the U-C IMC Steering Group notes, Sept. 23
re: Objectivists Debate
"General agreement that it's not worth our time." |
|
Response to Debate |
by Mike Donnigan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Sep 2001
|
|
I can't believe that nobody has decided to knock down this ninny yet! I understand that having a debate with him might be a waste of somebody's time, but at the same time, it would be hillarious to watch him stick his own foot in his mouth. Is anybody out there familiar with this Objectionism stuff? I am not, personally, but have heard enough to get the general idea. I hope somebody accepts this and puts him and his silly club in its place. |
|
Read This To Learn Why There Is No Debate |
by Mike Lehman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Sep 2001
|
|
I think the article linked below nicely sums up where the Objectivists got off on the wrong foot with us. It's hard to enter into debate with people who practice the same sorts of demonization of dissent as those noted in the article. |
See also:
http://urbana.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2265&group=webcast
|
|
Where to Start? |
by John Wason
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 Sep 2001
|
I tend to agree with ML and the IMC Steeting Committee
that a debate would be a waste of time, though I wouldn't
mind seeing Carl Estabrook have a go at it.
I guess I wonder what the starting point would be - the
premises or basic assumptions upon which the two debaters
would AGREE as a place to begin. Emotion-laden cliches
such as "barbarians" (used repeatedly and hardly with
surgeon-like precision in the original letter) and "aid
and comfort to the enemy" scarcely lend themselves to
any sort of rational debate. I may be lacking in imagination,
but I can't envision being able to agree with this group
on even the essential definitions of basic English WORDS.
Enlighten me if you care to, Ben. You're the graduate
student, and therefore probably far more intelligent than
I. Where would the two debaters START? |
|
A little familiar with Objectivism... |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Sep 2001
|
I could never consider myself a serious student of Objectivism nor Ms. Rand herself, but I am familiar with the tenets of this philosophy. A great deal of my knowledge comes from readings selections suggested by an old friend of mine who has become a hard-core Objectivist in the last six years or so. When I see him we usually engage in lively discussion, since I make a good foil for him.
I would neither be so arrogant nor foolish to simply dimiss Objectivism nor what its followers write and contend. Though not dismission doesn't mean you have to contend head-on either. Like so many philosophies I find elements which I find truthful, though the closer it gets to concretes, the greater my contention. Still, much to their chagrin, Objectivism remains a pretty fringe ideology, even in this corporate capitalist society. Therefore they need the PR generated by a debate with those advocating peace more than the peace advocates need it.
I also believe a debate with the Objectivist club is not a particularly useful expense of effort because of the very nature of the philosophy and the structure and approach of its greatest proponent, the Ayn Rand Institute. To even begin any fruitful debate requires agreeing on basic premises--but with Objectivism agreement on premises means agreement on concretes. There is no room for real debate, and the unwillingness or inability to debate within the same terms with an Objectivist will only lead the Objectivists in the audience to declare victory at what they see as your intractability and supposed irrationality. It is because of this that I think a real debate of ideas can't really happen.
To get a taste of the inflexible nature of Objectivist ideology, you only have to get a whiff of the infighting between the ARI and the Objectivist Center (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/)--for more see this "Introduction to Objectivist Schismology" (http://www.wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html). The U of I's Objectivists' own Mr. Bayer weighs in on the Objectivist Center (he calls them "Objectivesque") on his own website (http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~bbayer/bbc/), where he's also been kind enough to document his dialog with folks in the peace community and on the IMC website.
Excerpted from his website, this is Mr. Bayer's critique of Objectivist Center articles on Sept. 11 and the possibility of military response:
"The subsequent articles that followed a week later were just more descriptions of how really very bad this whole event was, with no further concrete recommendations as to what should be done. Being tolerant, I gues they were. They even caved into their libertarian sympathizers by including the following paragraph in one of the essays:
'There is ground for a legitimate debate on whether the US should intervene militarily, even with the best of intentions, in foreign internal conflicts or civil wars. It is plausible that a more selective and restrained policy in this area may diminish the threat of attacks on American territory.'
If that isn't a complete and total cop-out, nothing is."
(http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~bbayer/bbc/2001_09_16_index.html#5820125)
I especially enjoy the Objectivist Center being dismissed as "libertarian sympathizers."
Let the fringe attack the fringe, and let those of us concerned about the death of innocents let them be to argue amongst themselves. |
|
those bayer comments moved |
by reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Sep 2001
|
but they're not hidden too well. in case anyone still is reading this thread find all the above quoted comments from ben bayer at this stealthy url:
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~bbayer/mine/ |
|
Objectively speaking.... |
by John Wason
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Sep 2001
|
Even though I'm not a graduate student, I think I see what
Paul R. is driving at. The very use of the term
"Objectivist" is disingenuous. No one in the world is
truly objective, or indeed can be, and anyone who styles
himself as such is either a liar or a fool. Can we agree
on THAT, Ben, as a place to start? |
|
Going too Far |
by Mike Donnigan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Sep 2001
|
"No one in the world is
truly objective, or indeed can be, and anyone who styles
himself as such is either a liar or a fool. Can we agree
on THAT, Ben, as a place to start?"
I understand this line of reasoning, but don't you think it's going too far? I mean, isn't it a self-contradiction to say "There is no such thing as true objectivity?" I mean, in order to claim this, you have to think you're right (telling the truth), but then, in the process, you have to claim to be objective. I also wonder, is your potential name-calling-- "anyone who styles himself as such is either a liar or a fool"-- an objective statement, or not? If not, then why make the statement? If you admit it's not true, then why should anybody else listen? Again, attack who you may, but don't put forth utterly wrong ideas in the process, lest you just come off as contradictory and ignorant. |
|
Too deep for me |
by John Wason
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Sep 2001
|
That's too deep for me, Mike. You must be a grad student
in philosophy like Ben, one who enjoys discussing whether
Existence can be said to exist. Perhaps you should
debate the Objectivists, because you're obviously way
smarter than I am, and you called them "ninnies".
To answer your question, though, I subjectively said
that no one can be truly objective. I stand by my
subjective statement, subjectively. Make of that what
you will. |
|
Addendum |
by John Wason
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Sep 2001
|
I just read your comment again, Mike. Stating something
subjectively is not at all the same thing as "admitting
that it's not true." It's saying, "I believe this is
true." |
|
