Xref: utzoo sci.philosophy.tech:1957 news.groups:16679 talk.philosophy.misc:3459 talk.politics.misc:41585 talk.politics.theory:4636 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!ROSS_DAVID_HARTSHORN From: ROSS_DAVID_HARTSHORN@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,news.groups,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism Message-ID: <26157@cup.portal.com> Date: 20 Jan 90 22:23:33 GMT References: <369@dbase.A-T.COM> Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 20 In regards to whether a proposed discussion group on Objectivism should be moderated or not: I pick almost any forum I choose to discuss Objectivism, and get all the flame I want, albeit in non-electronic form. Church, work, wherever. I've been in a group of Objectivists (oops, make that "students of Objectivism", the proper term according to Leonard Peikoff and company) which was presided over by someone who tried to prevent anyone from disagreeing with him. My solution to the problem was simple: walk out. What I don't want is to spend time defending the basics of Objectivism to people who are irrationally and emotionally opposed to it already. I'd rather have a chance to discuss some aspects of it with people who already know what I'm talking about and who agree with the basics. Then we can discuss (even argue about) the applications, and I'd have a chance of learning something I didn't already know, or having someone point out to me something implied by Objectivist philosophy which I hadn't realized before. (and do my best to do the same for others in the group as well, of course) I would rather see someone act as moderator for the group, if he lets in all opinions that are relevant and not overtly irrational (even criticisms of Rand's basic ideas, if it's done intelligently).