What I am reading in your comment is an implication:
- that by attacking the use of a quote to ridicule those who have read Ayn Rand and attempt to present her ideas, I am myself promoting Ayn Rand's ideas,
- and that the other ideas of Ayn Rand's (beyond those illustrated by the metaphors used in Atlas Shrugged that lead to this quote, which is very specifically about government use of bad laws for manipulation) are relevant to this discussion.
This would lead for a need for a response to Ayn Rand's body of ideas as relates to "economic and common-sense grounds" (which I assume is not related to the quote by the grandparent), as opposed to specifically the original post or the direction I have put the thread in.
Is this the correct interpretation?
If so, I disagree that Ayn Rand's entire body of ideas is relevant to the discussion of the specific case put forward by her metaphor and narrative in the context of this quote and discussion.
An example of this kind of association fallacy: Heinlein promoted incest in his later novels (e.g. Lazarus Long's relationship with his mother post time travel). Incest has negative connotations in modern society. It would be possible to use an appeal to emotion: "Heinlein promotes incest! You like Heinlein, so I can't listen to your argument, since you promote incest." It would, however, be manipulation to do so. A similar line of argument is used to attack certain religions today (I've even seen some French politicians try to paint Muslims as barbarians by pointing out a few incidents of goats slaughtered ritually in the bath tubs of social housing projects).
Every writer, every body of work has flaws. The beauty of discussing ideas is to hash out a better set of values and ideas to better model and understand the world we live in. There are even valid uses of appeal to emotion, when emotion is used to transmit higher information content than can be done via contextual awareness and shared culture, or to transmit complex ideas quickly. You could even argue that's a large reason for the existence of art (much of which is paid propaganda, other propaganda of the artist's ideas spread using appeal to emotion).
To use a writer's flaws to censor their work out of discussion is a subtler, more powerful version of Orwell's 1984 book censorship. I hold that all books should be discussed, even the "unpalatable" ones.
Examples?
First, obviously one can suggest a book that they think "demolishes" Ayn Rand's (or any other author's) views, regardless of whether they think that the person they suggest it to supports Rand or not.
But let's get into the implication and see, if it was true, whether it could be justified.
So, you protest on the implication you think the parent makes that "by attacking the use of a quote to ridicule those who have read Ayn Rand and attempt to present her ideas, I am myself promoting Ayn Rand's ideas".
And you name various fallacies to show why this is not necessarily true.
Well, it might not be a logical conclusion in the formal logic sense, but it's a very probable conclusion given all we know about human behavior, how conversations go, etc -- not to mention your writing style.
In life, as opposed to pure math, we often need, and do, judgement calls based on incomplete data, calls that don't actually follow with 100% logical certainty, but are nevertheless quite clear from the general context. Sure, we might be wrong in some cases. That's still a net positive, if we are correct in most cases. 100% correctness is for the inhabitants of Vulcan.
I don't know what the parent consider you -- he might consider you a fellow anti-Rand person for all I know, and suggested the book because you'd appreciate it being such.
But to my eyes you totally look like a pro-Rand person -- not just because you jumped to criticize the quote (yes, it appealed to emotion -- but people tend to ignore that when it concerns emotions and quotes they are in favor of), but also because of the overall tone of the responses and the fallacitis ("oh, I discovered this blunt tool on the internet, let's hammer every conversation into a inquiry for objective truth").
Yes, one can. My complaint here was that it was not relevant to what was being discussed. It's similar to a discussion on the latest Postgres being hijacked by yet another languages war.
> In life, as opposed to pure math, we often need, and do, judgement calls based on incomplete data, calls that don't actually follow with 100% logical certainty, but are nevertheless quite clear from the general context
Agreed.
> 100% correctness is for the inhabitants of Vulcan.
Disagree. You make the best decision based on the incomplete data available, and your own value system. That decision is by definition "correct". There are always costs to any path.
> to my eyes you totally look like a pro-Rand person
This is irrelevant to the discussion, except as an ad hominem. Ad hominems are justified in a very small number of cases where directly relevant to the situation. Learning that an investor has a history of playing hardball with his portfolio companies is relevant when examining his term sheet. Dismissing entire arguments due to them not being branded right is not.
I am not trying to defend myself from belonging to a certain tribe or not, as it would not add to the discussion and would probably detract from it by taking it further down the road to the Trump/Clinton debates' tone. I am attempting to clarify arguments, values, premises and ideas for myself and others. You may assume it is propaganda: my own ideas, that I am trying to convince others of.
> because of the overall tone of the responses
What is the appropriate tone for responding? I believe I was sufficiently polite and civil, and fair in presenting my position. Please help me improve my communication style by pointing out how this was not the case.
> "oh, I discovered this blunt tool on the internet, let's hammer every conversation into a inquiry for objective truth"
It predates the internet. Technically I was first exposed to these ideas in Critical Thinking classes in high school, although self-study of logic and various books and life experience helped pad out most of it.
I would just add that the complexity of objective truth, and its lack of total discoverability (due to personal subjectivity, etc.) does not imply its inexistence, or the inadvisability of seeking to get closer to it. My philosophy chops are not developed enough to discuss this one much further though.
It is irrelevant to the original theme of the post, but it is quite relevant to the subthread that started with two quotes from and about Rand, and you coming to criticize the poster of the second quote. We're way too into that subthread for it to be irrelevant.
>What is the appropriate tone for responding? I believe I was sufficiently polite and civil, and fair in presenting my position. Please help me improve my communication style by pointing out how this was not the case.
That would be relevant if I had accused you that your tone was bad. What I say is completely different: that your tone made me think that you are a pro-Rand person (concerned with objectivity, overuse of logical fallacies, defensive of Rand, etc).
>It predates the internet.
Yes, but most people one meets online discovered it on the internet, often as part of a whole related culture (skeptics, etc.) and use it as a blunt instrument. The laundry list of fallacies wasn't that popular before the internet anyway, not even in philosophical and logician's discourses.
My belonging to the Ayn Rand tribe is irrelevant to the quality of my arguments, in the same way as your distaste for her work does not stop you from seeing the value in the original quote.
> "your tone was bad" "your tone made me think that you are a pro-Rand person (concerned with objectivity, overuse of logical fallacies, defensive of Rand, etc)"
Everything in the brackets strikes me as "bad" except "concerned with objectivity" (shouldn't we all be?) although in that case I think you meant to say Objectivism. If the tone, as opposed to the arguments, implies bad things, then the tone is bad.
This is a bit more complicated if the tone is merely a signal which might indicate belonging to a bad tribe, as opposed to the tone being objectively bad, because then we get on to deciding which tribe is good or bad. Personally, I have no inclination for going down that path for previously mentioned reasons.
I try hard not to judge people based on the signals they emit, except when I do not have the time to form a proper judgement, and I always hear what they have to say, as it is a way to learn something new (sometimes).
I still disagree with your implying that I am merely "laundry listing" big words as opposed to making points using them to rapidly communicate relevant concepts, but at this point I do not think we will reach agreement so I will agree to disagree and move on to the next thread.