We then decided within twenty minutes of more consideration, undistracted by the unprofessional conduct of both The Herald's representative, and the Communist party, that we would rescind our conditional acceptance and not engage in the debate at all. Kain, Aeon, and I felt that such a debate would send the message that the Communists have any moral credibility, and that their argument held any contemplative substance.
From our point of view, running parallel to the point of view expressed by Rand in her address to West Point graduates, we believe it is important to study viewpoints, and opinions that our not our own in order to understand why we have chosen our individual values and opinions. One could say the debate might have been used for educational purposes in helping to illuminate why an individual would choose to adopt a philosophic point of view such as Objectivism, but the inherent nature of debates and of this debate in particular does not lend itself as the optimum platform for such. It is my strong conviction that the Objectivist Institute can act far more efficiently by holding it's own discussions, and private debates, on an individual level. This is the level where the virtue of independence in intellectualism can be best expressed and applied.
It is unfortunate that the newspaper titled The Herald is biased and patronizing. Journalist Urizenus Sklar, of The Herald's National Affairs Desk, published an interview with 'Soviet Premier' Supercool Sautereau on January 30th, 2008. In this interview, Urizenus begins with the quote, "Forward thinking Herald readers may have feared that Soviet Communism was decomposing somewhere in the dustbin of history. But take heart comrades! It is not dead, but advancing on new frontiers and has now claimed its metaversal bridgehead on the shores of the Jessie Simulator." but later he states that "Dude, life in the soviet block sucked shit." He also uses the terms, "...and other racist fucktards, ..." "today their weapons include not just AK-47s, but orbits and other high tech tools favored by 21st century patriots." This journalist is obviously unfocused, ill prepared, and, to put it bluntly, oozes personal bias.
Likewise, while the ever eloquent Urizenus calls out Supercool on the state of Soviet Russia as previously noted, he does not call forth explanations on Supercool's use of the term "common people", for if there are "common people", then there must be "uncommon individuals". I believe it is safe to assume these are not as well protected nor receive Communist advocates rushing to their aid? Urizenus does not question why Supercool believes that capitalism "sadly followed this world", in terms of why it is sad. Nor does he ask how the Communists liberate the landless, nor the poor, and instead only focuses on griefers. He also doesn't seem to bother asking them how they can afford land on the Jessie Simulator, where many new comers "come here, for whatever reason," even though Supercool states that "(l)and is of course a necessary evil but [sic] we work to share anything we have with one another." I can only assume that the best land must be used for the best party. However, it's not the Communist's fault that their land is expensive, it's the "land tier fees, which are outrageous."
When Supercool later rebuts, "But the Soviet Union has done far more good than bad, and the Soviet people are owed by the history of the world a great debt for their wartime sacrifices," there is no further inquiry by the journalist.
In response to Urizenus' inquiry about outreach programs, Supercool states that the Communists have "political Brigades -- communists whose goal is to spread the word of the message." Here is an example of their political brigades, official or not.
A different Herald journalist, this time Pixeleen Mistral, contacts the Objectivist Institute (of Second Life) with the following invitation, "Some of the Communists would be interested in a philosophical discussion with you guys - they have a nice hall in Jessie that would be perfect for it." This quickly morphs into, "If we could host a debate I think the SL Herald would be able to cover it." For the record, Pixeleen offered for The Herald to host the debate.
It is also Pixeleen who then replies, after the request for a debate was initially declined, "But if the Objectivists are afraid to debate the Communists I can understand it." She also states, "If the Objectivists cannot debate the Communists it will tell us all something." Again, after a second declination, she rebuts, "I'm disappointed that the Objectivists are scared to do that, but whatever." After Kain questions her commitment to journalism and to her ulterior motivations, Pixeleen replies, "I'm sad for you Kain." Lastly, Pixeleen then has the gall to state, "The 'tardstar' (in reference to Avastar, quotes added) is far from neutral."
Let me remind you that Pixeleen is not the Premiere of the Communist Party, she is the journalist from The Herald who wishes to host this 'debate'. Supercool tries to cover his tracks by stating, "And they're not on our side either comrade Kain." However, after this dialogue I must seriously question whether that is true, given that on top of all of these transparent words, the Communist property (ha!) is practically adjacent to The Herald's headquarters, if not simply on the same simulation.
As you can see we can expect nothing of this debate with the Communists. From my personal, individual, point of view I believe that it is safe to say that we can expect very little in terms of serious debating in Second Life about Objectivist principles, let alone any principles, until the standards of debate and communications are raised. If anyone should feel sad about this state of affairs it is The Herald and the Communists, the first for interviewing the Premier but only offering us a scandalous debate, and the second for patronizing newspapers like The Herald so that they can then go and act as their intellectual bully on their behalf.
I challenge anyone to debate me, when I'm online, and when I feel like it. I might possibly, individually, participate in an open debate about other topics than Communism nor Socialism, such as the axioms of objective existence, or the pursuit of value, but I'm not going to prostrate myself in front of throngs of small minds bent on twisting my words and building up the credibility of their ideas by riding the coattails of mine. I will not engage in such dangerous games, and I hope that the Institute will never engage in such games now, nor ever. Objectivism is a philosophy about living life, and our pursuit of life needs no justification, nor proof by comparison.