Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RhondaW

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RhondaW

  • Rank
    Newbie

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

407 profile views
  1. It is similar to the term "big oil." Using the term may imply that the industry is dominated by a few companies with monopolistic powers. I'm sure that it has been discussed elsewhere how government interferes on many different levels with a free market for medicine. We are so far from a system where an inventor discovers a medicine with health benefits, offers the medicine in the market, consumers purchase depending on their need and ability to pay. If the medicine is successful, competitors enter the market with similar products hoping to gain market share. Prices eventually stabilize as the industry matures. I think that using terms like "big pharma" creates an excuse to ask big government to intervene and regulate big bad drug companies with price controls because the little people need a savior.
  2. I don't see a need to send children to church to learn morality. Besides, to say that the lessons are problematic is an understatement! "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. " Cover your ears, children, that's just wrong! Also, you have to find a church that doesn't try to teach them that the Earth is 10,000 years old or that Adam and Eve named the dinosaurs.... Bingo... okay. The art is nice. I love the Sistine Chapel and the cathedrals! Those are great.
  3. I listened to the LP quote a couple of times. He does indeed seem to be saying, in-context, that the woman's mere presence in the hotel room constitutes consent and that consent cannot be later withdrawn. Dr. Peikoff, as a philosopher, should be an expert at crafting words in such a way as to be clearly understood. More than the common person, he should understand the importance of "getting it right" when it comes to making a statement. It is generally my policy to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that what they meant to say was reasonable and often words don't come out the way a person intends them to. However, as I said, he is a philosopher and this was a prepared podcast. His words ought to be evaluated on face-value. In that light, I find it only a little disappointing that LP has this, what I consider to be, bizarre opinion of sexual consent. Frankly, I haven't cared for some of his other podcasts opinions either in the area of sexuality. Back to thinking for myself ;-) j/k Hopefully, for the sake of those who benefit from his podcasts, he will retract his statement. I don't know if anyone has said this, but the difference between rape and consent is physical force. I don't actually know if this was proven in the Kobe Bryant case. I actually get the impression, from reading the facts that are known, that physical force was not proven, but it seems that he used persuasion to allow matters to progress beyond the point of her comfort level. That is not, in my view, rape. The guilt or innocence of Bryant does not change my view of the LP statement. It is still wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...