Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dan Edge

Regulars
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. That was a fantastically devastating critique!
  2. Peikoff on date rape

    In that excerpt, Amy Peikoff was referring to the comments of Erosophia blogger Jason Stotts from his post Contra-Peikoff on Rape. From the introduction to that post: "I think that Leonard Peikoff has done some great things for Objectivism, he is like a demi-Aquinas, but when he talks about sex and sexual issues, it makes me really sad. Frankly, his position on rape is both disgraceful and disgusting. I don’t know how anyone of good moral character or intelligence could actually advocate what Peikoff advocated. It is made much worse because Peikoff is someone I respect and I did not expect him to hold such a reprehensible view of rape. ... Leonard Peikoff believes that if a woman were to come to a man’s house late at night, dressed sexily, and perhaps drunk, that he should just be able to use her a fuck-toy, even if she says no. Even if she says no. He thinks that the context is sufficient consent and that any other consent is unnecessary. Furthermore, he believes that this consent cannot be withdrawn, which is the most troubling part of his claim. ... Ultimately, the only thing that differentiates sex from rape is consent and just because a person initially gives some kind of consent, does not mean that this consent cannot be withdrawn. I really hope that Peikoff just wasn’t thinking clearly when he said this and that he will recant his statement after reflection." Jason's analysis in the rest of his post is essentially correct. He has already taken heat for the harsh tone of his post, Amy Peikoff being one heat source. --Dan Edge
  3. Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position

    Thomas, Although we often disagree on minor issues, I usually appreciate your thoughtful input; but I'm very disappointed with your position on checkingpremises.org. I agree with Diana that you have wildly misinterpreted some of her stated views. I also find troubling your suggestion that a nation can declare war on an ideology. Such a view makes sense to me at all. Nations declare war on other nations. This distinction is crucially relevant, and the failure to acknowledge this leads to absurd conclusions, like advocating a U.S. military attack against U.S. private property while bypassing the entire judicial process. I hope you will reconsider. Otherwise, I may have to brand you a Subjectivst Rationalist Minovas Jr. Objectivist for all time! --Dan Edge
×