ingok

Right. Sorry if I wasn't clear: I don't blame EC for judging homosexuality; I blame him for condemning it the way he is, that is, without justification.

Because I'm gay and I think I should stand up for my morality. Others of us on this thread defending homosexuality might have gay friends or relatives they think deserve to be defended from accusations like yours. Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I haven't read all 1,000 posts on this thread, but I don't think you have yet given any solid explanation for why homosexuality is immoral. You should show that it is before you go about attacking the people who defend it. That's also pretty blatant argument from intimidation--"hmmm... the way you're arguing, you sound pretty gay." Fortunately, you can't intimidate *me* because I know I'm gay. What if I were to turn that argument around and use it on you? For all I know, the reason you lash out at us homosexuals is because you are one secretly and act homophobic as a defense. Now, how is that any less ridiculous than *your* accusation? Not *everything* is susceptible to moral judgment. What is not a choice is not a question of morality... and whatever motives the scientists who do the studies have, there is a lot of scientific support for genetic/learned homosexuality. If it turns out it isn't a choice, then it *isn't* a question of morality. Yes, if by "this" you mean "this thread." At 41 pages, it's really beginning to disintegrate. I think it should be locked, no one is getting anywhere. And your later post about anything other than male-female union not being sex... how on *earth* do you support that claim? Even if it were true, "homosexuality" is not the same as "male-to-male sex." Would that make all virgins asexual?

I'm relatively new posting here, and am not acquainted too well with the place. If there's already a thread similar to this topic, let me know. What are the criteria of a "human being?" For example: -At what point does a fetus become a human being? What does it need to develop in order to attain "human rights?" -Does a severely retarded person who cannot be said to have a volitional consciousness count as a human being? If not, do they still retain any semblance of "rights?" -Are children fully developed "human beings?" Do they have they same rights as adults applied a different way, or none at all? In short: what is required, physiologically, biologically, and mentally, for a given entity to be called a human being? And: What rights, and at what stages, do "human beings" have?

I'm glad you think this. I've been told the opposite so many times I'm afraid to tell anyone my age anymore .

I think that older Objectivists have less questions that need answering on the topic. I am 14 (by the way, is there any age minimum on this forum that I'm violating??) and post here only because I want aid in answering nagging questions. I am sure you are right in one respect though. For many Objectivists, Objectivism is treated only as a phase, and is tossed off carelessly as soon as it is "grown out of." These are the kind who never understood Objectivism in the first place, who twist the philosophy around in order to form a new excuse for hating all of man kind. Using themselves as examples, they feel all Objectivists are like they are. The worst kind of Ad Hominem argument is using ones own dark past as an example of the "ill effects" of a system of thought. Even though you are right that most young people are highly irrational, you seem to treat the issue (though I might merely be misinterpreting your tone) in overgeneral terms. A rational young person is a rational young person, no matter how many irrational youths exist, and an irrational adult is an irrational adult no matter how many adults are perfectly rational. I reply to your saying "The young HATE effective 'inferiors' to themselves" with, "Well, shouldn't they? Or is there mistake in labeling people 'inferior' without thinking things over thoroughly?" Even though I'm a teen, there are some adults who are inferior to me--and I hate them, because they should be taking better care of their minds. I think the mistake that so many angst-riddled teenagers make is in presuming themselves to be better than they really are. Presumptuousness, not pride, is their error. (And there are many more exceptions than you might think.) Becaue I am merely a teenager, I am likely much more fallible and much more impressionable than most adults are. An older friend told me, "You are a powerful intellect, to be sure, but foremost a fourteen year old boy." This is true. But is it right for you to default on my intelligence, claiming that every judgment I make is tainted by my "lack of experience?"

Why do you call not living at all "neutral?" It is a negative, because a value (ones life) is actively being destroyed. So then, the basic question is whether to take ones own life (a negative) or allows ones life to be taken through slavery or murder (another negative.) Which is the more negative, and why? You can't argue that "choosing between the lesser of two evils" is pointless. True, you are not achieving a value, but you are, to the best of your ability, preserving one. You are not achieving a value if you cooperate with a mugger in order to retain your life, but you are preserving one. In the situation my friend described (think along the lines of Communist Russia rather than a socialized America, if it helps) why is it better to take ones own life rather than allow it to be taken? Aren't they equal evils, since you will lose your life anyway? This situation is comparable to the Strikers' in AS, since they ruin their own life's work, rather than allow it to be drained by the blood-sucking altruists. But the two situations *are* different, because in the latter a value is in fact gained (freedom from interference in ones production), while in the former situation (with Comm. Russia) no value is gained either way. You are going to lose your life no matter what you do. So why should it matter who is the destroyer? Isn't is unselfsish to believe that your moral standing is at the mercy of some slave-drivers actions? (P. S. - Sorry about "copying" Megan Robinson's fish avatar. I'll find a replacement soon.)

No, I'm not trying to brush any negativity off the term. I don't like very much when people use such terms as "religious-minded," while only briefly brushing over what they mean by it. What I was trying to say is that religion carries both good and bad qualities, and when a term such as "religioius-minded" is used, it should always be defined clearly. Not that I can accuse the posters who used it though, as I am often guilty of the same thing.

Here is the basic idea of the Social Contract (somebody correct me if I am slightly off): When someone violates the rights of others, they have waived their own rights. If, thenceforth, they have any rights, they hold them conditionally, i. e., by the allowance of the government or by the allowance of the offendee.

"Necessary" was the wrong word to use, I'm sorry. I am a nascent Objectivist and still have to get the hang of using language how it ought to be used. Let me restate the question: "Is it more virtuous to merely survive while allowing your life to be squeezed out of you by others, or to give up both your biological and proper life by way of commiting suicide?" I would think that it is evil to commit suicide under any condition. If life is the standard of value, why destroy ones life? P. S.- It's "ingok", not "ignok." It stands for "Ingo Kleinsorge", which is my self-proclaimed "German Name." I am a rampant geek when it comes to foreign languages.

Wrong! The concepts of "life" and "reason" are just as concise as mathematical numbers, and the operators ":" and "::" are as concise as "+" and "=." It could be written more concisely as the following, though there is no change in meaning: "The concept of a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action has the same relationship to the concept of a process of non-contradictory identification and integration as the concept of a non-justified belief in a supernatural power does to the concept of the abscence of the process of self-generated and self-sustaining action." That is quite as clear and concise as "2 + 2 = 4."

There is no difference between full-on socialism and full-on anarchy. They are two different kinds of dictatorships. In one, street thugs with clubs take your money. In the other, the so-called "government" does. Either way, it is anarchy.

I somewhat identify with you here, because I love porn as well and don't find any reason to hold it as immoral. However, since it is an unresolved issue in my mind, I am trying not to view any pornography until I have made a decision. Here is what I think at the moment: You are wrong that you have an "instinct" to copulate with multiple partners. Humans, being volitional, do not have instincts. An instinct is an influence forced onto ones actions. A free volition cannot be forced. What you mean when you say this is that you and your body both know it is desirable to mate with multiple partners. You claim that the viewing of pornography is a substitute, in order to avoid cheating on your girlfriend, which would be a contradiction of your convictions. But your viewing pornography is a contradiction, because you have admitted (between the lines, at least) that you have an "instinctive" desire to copulate with multiple partners! Have you investigated why this desire exists, and why pornography specifically serves as a substitute for this desire? I think that the purpose of pornography is simply, well, sexual arousal. Is that not a valid value? For some people it is a method of evading ones low self-esteem. For those who treat the issue correctly, porn is simply a method of attaining pleasure, akin to eating especially tasty food or watching a movie just for enjoyment value. The snag I hit when thinking about the subject is whether or not I am sanctioning the immoral actions of porn stars by way of viewing their products. If it is wrong to create porn, is it also wrong to watch it?

Eek! This is a common mistake of Objectivists: defining Objectivism as "the philosophy that's true." I agree with Peikoff that Objectivism is a closed system, which cannot be added to or modified. Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Objectivism is true" is not a tautology. Sure, most of the arguments against Objectivism are as stupid as the pattern you give above, but you just said, in effect, "Anything ant-Objectivist is wrong, because Objectivism is defined as whatever is right."

I'll answer your questions one at a time: 1) It is not wrong at all. Whose values should she care about other than her own? If she is rude to you or does not consider you worthy of respect, she is not acting in her own self-interest. As Howard Roark said in The Fountainhead: "To say, 'I love you,' you must first be able to say the 'I.'" It isn't selfless to care for someone else's feelings; if she doesn't, she's not acting for *either* of your values. 2) You need to explore the *reasons* why you want to break up with her, and consider whether they are valid. If you love her, stay with her, and have sex with her as much as you want (If you read more into Objectivism, you'll discover that sex is about much more than pleasure.) If you do not love her, and do not hesitate to admit it if it is true, break up. As an afterthought, I want to tell you one thing that has helped me more often than any other caveat. No one can resolve something for you. To decide something, you must self-validate it in your own mind, which means: you have to know you are right, not because someone has told you so, but because you have come up with the truth yourself. Don't let anyone in this forum or anyone else tell you whether or not you really love your girlfriend. And, most importantly of all: If there is a conflict between your head and your heart, go by your head! Good luck. P. S.- Despite what some posters in this thread say, a religious-minded Objectivist is not an oxymoron. A dogmatic Objectivist certainly is, but consider other aspects of religion: worship, admiration, respect. These are all common devices of almost all Objectivists.

Yes, it is indeed still immoral. If congress made a federal law saying you could rob a bank, it would still be immoral for you to rob it--the bank has not lost its right to its property, no matter what the federal government says. Whether you live in fear and secrecy or not is not the sole criterion of your choice whether or not to respect others' rights. Even if you can get away with it totally clean, with no possibility in the world of being caught, it would be rational and selfish to continue respecting that bank's property right. A selfish person deals with others through free trade and mutual benefit, rather than coerced trade and mutual degradation. If you rob a bank, you are hurt as much, if not more, than the bank is. You now have a guilty conscience, because you know you have done something immoral; you now have a pile of money that is not yours, that will bring you no happiness, and that will only remind you of the method by which you got it every time you look at your wallet. If, however, you deal with the bank and receive money from it by mutual consent, you've nothing to worry about. Money is not an end in itself, and a robber does not want to be rich, but only to make others poorer. Parasitism can never be profitable, because that which is taken from others unearned is only a temporary mirage of actual benefit, which will evaporate into thin air as soon as the host shrugs the piggy-backer off. Physical values, such as paper money, are only the physical manifestations of implicit values. If this physical value has been earned, if it is backed by a true value, then it serves as a value in itself. If little slips of green paper are backed by real values--traded goods--then they are genuine currency, and will bring happiness. Otherwise, they are only slips of little green paper, no more valuable than monopoly money. Don't take this to mean that I think material objects are only "distortions" of actual truth, temporary placeholders of "higher" values. Let me clarify: unbacked by internal values (happiness, integrity, etc.), physical values are counterfeit values, used to fake value rather than to create it. Unsupported by physical values (money, sex, art, etc.), internal values are daydreams, convictions one holds, but does not support through action (see Ayn Rand's short story, Ideal). Both are one half of a painting, with a crude copy of the other half painted on a canvas and glued on. Together, they form the original image, fitting together so perfectly they do not even leave a crack. Apart, only a fool can pretend he is holding an original, non-ersatz piece of art, and usually, to prevent himself knowing this, he makes sure to remain a fool. This is difficult for anyone to do, even the worst of idiots cannot hoodwink himself for long before he finally realizes his error. They need someone to repaint the missing half of the picture constantly, to keep themselves in ignorance. They become parasites, relying either on producers to make their abstract ideals physical reality, or on philosophers to assign a meaning to their random movements. But this does not work. What the parasite does not know, or does not want to know, is that, as a human being, he must be the artist of both halves of the artwork. Life cannot be faked; the human mind is too powerful to trick itself into, or be tricked into, happiness. A robber like that in your example relies on others to create his own physical values for him. He has a set of convictions (wanting money, for example) that he is not willing to carry out on his own. He needs to steal the products of others and use them as the other half of his life. It will not take such a person long to discover that stolen jigsaw pieces do not fit together, i. e., stolen money and the desire for wealth are incompatible in any person. (Afternote: Rational One writes: "It is in you interest to uphold other's rights and support a government that does the same so that your rights have a better chance of being upheld also." This is false, because it is a categorical imperative. Just because you violate someone's rights, doesn't mean that your rights will be violated. Men aren't held together by strings, they do not move each other's limbs like marionettes. By Categorical Imperative logic, it is wrong to turn left on 31st street, because if everyone did that, there would be a major traffic jam.)