What do the libertarian types think about Holocaust Museum killer James von Brunn being all over the Yahoo Ron Paul for President chat sites with numerous posts spouting his venom?

Why do sites and politicians like Ron Paul seem to attract folks like this? Why did von Brunn apparently believe he had a comfortable environment there to hold forth on his views?

And why has the site erased most of his posts so nobody can read them and see exactly what he said?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

What do the libertarian types think about Holocaust Museum killer James von Brunn being all over the Yahoo Ron Paul for President chat sites with numerous posts spouting his venom?

Wackos everywhere. I hear he drank cows' milk, too. Watch out for those dairyists!

And why has the site erased most of his posts so nobody can read them and see exactly what he said?

desperate, ad-hom-slinging dickheads like you, probably.


---

aside (edit added later):

How sick do you have to be to see a tragedy and immediately think of ways to spin it so you can start scoring political points off it?

You said

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, but "methanol boils at 65 C" is a completely different sort of statement than "I don't wish to be murdered."

and this

Because making a value judgment is doing, while observing value judgments being made is observing.

I am going to assume that you would also say this

Because "wishing not to be murdered" is doing, and observing that methanol boils at 65 C is observing.

They certainly are different activities. I can see that. But why does this matter? How does one make logical errors making logical-form arguments using actions rather than observations? Can you give an example of this?

I said this before, my understanding is logic involves the truth content of statements, not what kinds of things are being discussed.
************************************************** ***************
Matt said that one can dislike murder, think that killing of innocents defines murder, but then not dislike the killing of innocents and that sequence is logical. It's not.

It's like he is saying that one can feel any way they like and still be rational. No you can't. If you honestly dislike murder, and you honestly believe that killing of innocents defines murder, then must dislike the killing of innocents. If you choose otherwise you are being irrational. But then, humans often make irrational choices.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

So logical conclusions are valid only if the subject in question meets certain psychological requirements? Doesn't this go against the word 'valid'?

No, I was merely pointing out that a logical conclusion isn't invalidated by the existence of crazy people. It's also possible for a person to believe that his family have become government agents out to get him, or that there are spiders crawling under his skin. The syllogism you proposed earlier (I don't like murder, murder is the killing of innocent people, therefore I don't like killing innocent people) is sound. Only a disordered mind could at the same time like killing innocent people and not like murder; disordered minds can exist w/r/t cognitive thought as well as feeling, though.

Um. There is objective content in our concepts of human emotion (That is, the same person cannot have an overall positive opinion of X and a negative overall opinion of X at the same time.). It's simply that what is true for you might not be not true for some. IOW, two people disagreeing over whether something is morally good face a contradiction; two people disagreeing over whether they like something face no contradiction

Right, but that is true of an imperative just as much as a factual statement. The sense of a moral statement is not just "I like/don't like X" but also "you should, too." And by the way, that isn't always true. There is such a thing as personal morality, recognized as applying to oneself but not to others. For example, a monk believes that he should abstain from sex and from owning property; he does not however believe that this is a universal moral statement, but only one applying to himself and other monks.

Fortunately, there's nothing wrong with the first statement, which is really just an explanation of one facet of realism.

There is something wrong with it. Let's look at it again:

If 'Good' and 'Bad' (right/moral) have contradictory meanings in common language, then there is objective content to our conceptions of 'Good' and 'Bad.'

Implied in this is that there are contradictory meanings in common language only if there is also objective content. As I pointed out, there are contradictory meanings in common language with non-objective content, as well; you now are saying that there can be no contradiction between two people (as opposed to internally) without objective content, but that's not true, either. There is contradiction two people who are issuing conflicting imperatives, and that is what moral disagreements entail.

Mike:

My disagreement with you does not lie in statements of morality being logic-apt. It lies in your assertion that they can be treated objectively, by scientific method or something similar. The distinction between obeserving and doing applies to that, not to logic.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If there is no higher authority from which morality proceeds, then it is a matter of individual feelings, which no one would have a right to demand anyone else adhere to.

But yes they do. Imagine an association of people who like the music of Barry Manilow. If you were to join this association and then express distaste for that music, they would be within their rights to throw you out.

Now imagine an community of people who dislike murder. People who felt differently would not belong to such a community. Everybody within the community would feel the same way about murder, that is, they would share a common morality wrt to murder.

Now imagine that the community is defined by a large set of beliefs about how one should act. They would then share a common morality. Moral questions would have answers within this community. A person who did not hold these beliefs (i.e. did not give the right answers to moral questions or behave in the correct way) could not be a member and so would be exiled.

Now imagine many communities with a wide variety of moral codes, all competing for resources.

Some moralities give competitive advantages to groups. For example, moralities which forbid violence between families will support a larger community than moralities which permit interfamily violence.

Communities that possess advantageous moralities will grow in size, taking resources away from other smaller communities, either destroying or assimilating them. The elites of successful communities will benefit from this sort of communal success and they will use their elite status to reinforce the morality that gives them these benefits. From these elite activities you get law, property, government etc.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

My disagreement with you does not lie in statements of morality being logic-apt. It lies in your assertion that they can be treated objectively...

How is "treated objectively" different from "logic-apt"? To me, to treat something objectively is to consider it as usable in logical reasoning, as an object in logic statements. That is, logic-apt, means "capable of being treated objectively".

So I am puzzled by what you mean because it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.

Ah Justin .... your Pavlovian response is most humorous. I guess it would be too much to ask you to answer the question as to why someone like von Brunn thought the Ron Paul for President discussion site was a friendly environment to his ideas. I guess it is too much for you to consider why the mans were embraced and echoed by others posting who felt welcome on the same Ron Paul for President site.

You would have made a great ostrich Justin.

Okay, on second thought, probably only a decent ostrich.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Wacko posts wacko posts on website. Website deletes posts.

I'm not sure I follow. Did some of hm's posts here get deleted?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How is "treated objectively" different from "logic-apt"? To me, to treat something objectively is to consider it as usable in logical reasoning, as an object in logic statements.

No, "objective" means that something is a part of the observable world. There are many things which are logic-apt but non-objective. The classic example is mathematics, which is entirely made up in people's heads, but definitely logic-apt. Mathematics is not objective either, in the sense I'm using that word.

The Rani.... The website in question - the Yahoo Ron Paul for President site - DIN NOT delete the posts of von Brunn because he was offensive or a whacko. They deleted them AFTER the murder becuase of being embarassed. As long as von Brunn was only espousing hate on the Ron Paul site, he was considered a member in good standing and his posts were untouched.

we have a unique opportunity to look into the developing political idealogy of a political extremist who crossed the line and committed a murder for political reasons. This is an opportunity of a lifetime for people that want to know what makes such persons tick. Sadly, websites like the Yahoo Ron Paul for President discussion group could not get rid of the posts from von Brunn quickly enough. I would love to see what he had to say beyond his racial and ethnic rantings. I would very much like to know why he picked the Ron Paul site for his rantings, why he felt welcome there, what kind of reception he got from the other Ron Paul supporters, and other questions I would like answered.

What are people afraid of????? Why is it better to play ostrich and hide your head in the sand than find out the truth about these matters. Oh wait - Justins posts provide clues to those answers.

Most likely he felt at home posting there because Ron Paul, in his rejection of the positions of both the major parties, has that in common with other dissidents of all sorts. That's particularly true of those who fear the U.S. is becoming a tyranny. Ron Paul himself is a libertarian, but his rejection of the government structure is shared by those who are not libertarian but simply loony and paranoid. Like that guy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Most likely he felt at home posting there because Ron Paul, in his rejection of the positions of both the major parties, has that in common with other dissidents of all sorts. That's particularly true of those who fear the U.S. is becoming a tyranny. Ron Paul himself is a libertarian, but his rejection of the government structure is shared by those who are not libertarian but simply loony and paranoid. Like that guy.

Brian, Brian. You've been around the Inter Nets long enough to know, trolls are for baiting, not feeding.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, I was merely pointing out that a logical conclusion isn't invalidated by the existence of crazy people. It's also possible for a person to believe that his family have become government agents out to get him, or that there are spiders crawling under his skin. The syllogism you proposed earlier (I don't like murder, murder is the killing of innocent people, therefore I don't like killing innocent people) is sound. Only a disordered mind could at the same time like killing innocent people and not like murder; disordered minds can exist w/r/t cognitive thought as well as feeling, though.

Look, Brian, I don't know what you're getting on about. All you have shown is that it is possible for a person to not be bound by the implication of his views, yet you insist on using a different definition for validity than logicians. For the nth time, psychological attitudes can only be evaluated psychologically. If there are problems with pinpointing this, then that's a problem for psychology.

But this is all secondary, since the theme for the second premise we've been using does not (and cannot) assume a prescriptive form in subjectivist-speak. It would have to be along the lines of 'killing innocents is something I don't like/wouldn't advise/etc..'

Implied in this is that there are contradictory meanings in common language only if there is also objective content. As I pointed out, there are contradictory meanings in common language with non-objective content, as well; you now are saying that there can be no contradiction between two people (as opposed to internally) without objective content, but that's not true, either. There is contradiction two people who are issuing conflicting imperatives, and that is what moral disagreements entail.

They disagree on a course of action, but it's not a contradiction or inconsistency in the sense that Frege is using it. There is no truth-value to 'Do X!' and 'Don't Do X!':

Originally Posted by Gottlob Frege

[I]f something were true only for him who held it to be true, there would be no contradiction between the opinions of different people.

Once again, this is just a way to describe the difference between two schools of thought.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Look, Brian, I don't know what you're getting on about. All you have shown is that it is possible for a person to not be bound by the implication of his views, yet you insist on using a different definition for validity then logicians use.

The definition of validity that logicians use is that an argument is valid only if its premises entail the truth of its conclusion, so that it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. By that standard, the syllogism you presented is valid. If it is true that I dislike murder, and if it is true that killing innocent people is murder, then it must be true that I dislike killing innocent people. If it turns out that the conclusion is false, i.e. I do like killing innocent people, then it must be the case that one or both of the premises was also false.

It is not impossible that someone might say that he dislikes murder, while showing that he likes killing innocent people, but in that case he spoke falsely in saying he disliked murder. Either he lied, or he was in denial.

For the nth time, psychological attitudes can only be evaluated psychologically.

You can say it as many times as you like. That won't make it true. It's not.

But this is all secondary, since the theme for the second premise we've been using does not (and cannot) assume a prescriptive form in subjectivist-speak. It would have to be along the lines of 'killing innocents is something I don't like/wouldn't advise/etc..'

That's not relevant. There is no reason why we can't mix subjective and objective statements, but if we do, then a valid conclusion must itself be subjective.

They disagree on a course of action, but it's not a contradiction or inconsistency in the sense that Frege is using it.

You have made the claim that no assertions which are not objective in content can exhibit logical contradictions. That is plainly and self-evidently not true. The quote from Frege you presented applies only to assertions which are themselves truth-apt; a statement which is not truth-apt is NOT "true only for him who held it to be true." It's not true (or false) for anyone, including the one who says it. It is something for which truth or falsehood is a meaningless question; rather, the question is concurrence or disagreement -- concurrence meaning not, "I agree that this is true," but rather "I choose as well to go by that rule." Many of the same logical functions can apply to concurrence or disagreement with imperatives, as to truth or falsehood of factual claims; the premises and conclusions take the form "I agree/disagree with X" rather than "X is true/false."

There is no truth-value to 'Do X!' and 'Don't Do X!' Or rather, it's true only for those who think that thought:

Wrong. It is not true (or false) even for those who think that thought. Now, you can derive from it a statement of fact, thus: "Gandhi taught that political protest should be conducted nonviolently." This is an objective statement of fact, and is true; Gandhi did teach that. Take off the first three words, though, so that it becomes, "Political protest should be conducted nonviolently," and you have a statement that is not truth-apt. It's an imperative, not a factual claim. It was not "true" even for Gandhi. But it was according to his will, and he persuaded his followers to go by it, and it is still subject to logic. "Political protest should be conducted nonviolently. I am engaged in a political protest. Therefore, I should not whack that counter-protester on the head with my picket sign."

One way to think of it is that will-assertions or imperatives can be converted into truth-apt statements of fact in this way. "Political protest should be conducted nonviolently" can be rendered as, "It is my will that political protest be conducted nonviolently." Now this, although subjective, is a statement of fact and is truth-apt. We may similarly render the conclusion as, "Therefore, it is not my will to whack that counter-protester on the head with my picket sign." This is also a subjective, but truth-apt statement. The second premise is of course a statement of objective fact.

What I would propose is that we may logically treat moral statements by 1) requiring internal consistency, and 2) regarding moral reasoning as valid when a construction using the subjective-factualized rendering of moral assertions (as above) is valid.

Where's the proof that the guy was who he said he was.

The Parallel Lives of the Noble T4Ters and Eurasians

Originally Posted by Plutarch of Progress

named for a Progressive-ist/named for a Progressive-ist
educationist/educationist
draft evader/draft evader
hated libertarian posts/hated classical liberalism
admired "That Man"/admired "That Man"
"Was Always Right!"/"Was Always Right!"
__T4Ter_/"Il Duce"

You too can be a "Plutarch of Progress" with a Parallel Life; Do submit.*

_____
An antipathy or empathy towards anarchism and or libertarianism is much favored on this* thread.

Rani - there is a record of many posts he made that were quoted by others. They are still there. But they took down the ones he made himself. Yahoo admits that.

I would be glad to provide a link for you if you want to read them.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaulfo ... s=0&cnt=10" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

you have to possess a yahoo account or you can register and read them

So his old party registration somehow cancels out all the hate posts he made on the Ron Paul for President site NOW?????

You believe what you want to believe. You always do.

The reaction of both you and Justin answers my search for the truth. As they say - denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

The reaction of both you and Justin answers my search for the truth. As they say - denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Who's denying anything? I've more or less granted your blind assertion that this guy posted some sort of something wherever you say he did on the Inter Nets. It's just that... so what?

There's this guy here, kathaksung, who is firmly convinced that the CIA is out to get him on behalf of some sort of wide-reaching conspiracy (I got bored of reading his posts many months ago). Do his rantings say anything at all about the T4T site or Generational Theory? I mean, other than the fact that the moderators here are willing to tolerate a relatively high level of weirdness. Which, to me, seems like not a bad thing at all...

Oh boy.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...gin-to-vanish/

So someone has a history of posting hateful remarks underthe name James von Brunn for a long time and then a guy named James von Brunn kills this gaurd in DC and the news media reports that it is the same guy butthat is not good enough for you?????

Here is a link provided by Wikipedia from their article on the Holocaust Museum murder. WARNING: it contains offensive material. This should not be swept under the rug. It is good that MEIN KAMPF is still in print today so that we can always study such vitriol and the sick mind that produces such material. It helps us to remember and never forget. And such is the case with the writings of James von Brunn.

http://web.archive.org/web/200712160911 ... mpire.org/

The Washington Post has an article containing interviews of neighbors and associates of von Brunn in the town he lived in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Many gun rights supporters are fond of the bumper sticker which says something like "You will not take my gun until you pry it from my cold dead hand." Von Brunn left behind a note in his car with his own version ...
“You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them,”

Nobel Prize winner Paul krugman has a good column about the public broadcasting of hate in todays New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opini ... odayspaper


You are worried about your own idealogy and this public relations disaster. Thus, the erasing of the record and the denial of reality. Krugman is correct.

Your scrambling desperation is always a source of amusement.

Thank you for brightening my day.

Playing ostrich does not make it go away Justin. James von Brunn felt comfortable and welcome on the Ron Paul for PResident Yahoo discussion boards. His views and rantings were supported and echoed by others. You can pretend all you want but its still there just the same.

Originally Posted by The Rani

But after some research it appears the shooter, James Von Brunn is in fact - despite the protestations of the Kos Kids - a registered democrat from Maryland.

I read it on teh internets so it MUST be true.

Guess who else is a big time Democrat?

Fred Phelps.