Tomer

No Muslims hah?

I should have started the argument by saying that the U.S. has NO REAL CONSTITUTION. why? Because the basis for the term constitution has to be that individuals have unalienated rights, which are to be protected at all costs with no exception (according to the objectivist ethics). The Sherman act made it clear that the constitution has no firm base. Before I'll give you my definition of constitution, try to give me yours. Remember that it'll have to be clearly distinguished from the concept of law.

Now you lost me... the first part of your sentence suggest that you understand that there are differences (which are, of course, the self evidental, physical differences). The seconed part reffers to other differences to which you have no proof. You realize that such an assertion is not considered knowledge, right? Define your terms. No difference at all? When did you read that on this thread? As I said, some are self evident. What exactly do you mean? Couldn't agree more! I can think of some reasons: 1. A mentality that acccept non-axioms as axioms - For instance, a person that reads a lot of Rand's writings for a long period, than suddenly reads "About A Woman President" and decides first to accept her notions and seconed to try and prove it by any means he can (because it has to be true) and last, he accepts it by not identifing the problem and it's absurdity. (I'm using the term 'Axiom' in a sense of a truth, not to be questioned) 2. A terrible inferiority complex - MAN - Compensating for lack of self - esteem by thinking - 'at least I'm superior to women in a fundamental sense.' WOMEN - 'I am inferior and here is my proof of that. I can't help it, it is beyond me, I'm fundametally inferior.' 3. Favouring feelings over facts - Choosing not to understand because they will be "better Objectivists". 4. A missleaded over confidence - 'There is no possible way that I'll be wrong about it.' Exactly. I reffer you to my prior posts here....

I have no argumant to offer you. You have just admitted that it is not possible. I am sorry for that, but it is your choice and your right.

Are you confused or cynical? I honestly can't say. what do you think is right in this issue? seriously.

Instead of asking him to show you an essential difference, understand that such is not possible. As you interestingly concluded, it is just another case of RACISM. (for further clarification, read Racism by Ayn Rand).

AutoJC, You are making an interesting argument. I'll answer you tomorrow.

Try to look at what you said beyond the social norms you are used to and grew-up on. Women CAN DO WHATEVER MEN CAN. Look around you, for instance, in the military women are located in many sorts of possitions which they had'nt been for ages like snipers, combat soldier etc. The mere fact (which I doubt that it is) that up until now there were no female bodyguards doesn't say that women cannot be.

This is an interesting point. Another aspect of my argument to which I'm only now aware of: Can't you see that "surrendering control" and "premitting the man to do as he wants" requires the woman to be omniscience (knowing beyoned any doubt what her man will do) and, at the same time, demanding of the man to be infallible (incapable of making mistakes in his sexual relationship)? Some of the users here see that there is NO rational basis for psychological differences between men and women, or at least begining to see this (I reffer anyone to my prior posts here). My suggestion to you is to analyze this issue from the beginning, Not Rand's but your's and reach your own conclusions, your's not HER'S. I see Ayn Rand as the greatest human to ever lived. That is why I understand the difficulty that some of you are facing. I faced it too once. Reason has to be absolute, not Rand, not anyone. Think for yourself.

Hey Eran, how are you doing? You know as well as I do that it is a still-running-debated-issue that will go nowhere for at least another decade or so. As much as Israel is considered 'enlightened' when compared to it's Arab neigbours, Most of its citizens are primitive, tribal-colective-god-worshiping-concrete-bound mentalities. Dolev answered this, partly, in her previous post. It basically comes down to this: (it is a repeatiative formula) This is a basic law, blah blah blah.., that can be changed contradicted or ignored whenever a new law will pass. This is really absurd.

Yes. this is an excellent way to describe my argument against the concept of 'Masculinity'. When defining 'Masculinity', the concept of 'Man' is not essential to it; when considering the concept of 'Man', masculinity is not its exclusive atribute (although each and every man posesses that atribute). Precisely! I actually quoted her when I used the term 'Servant' - (CUI 332). I totally agree with that. A rational president has to be a great individual, one who will have all the qualities mentioned before in order to do a better job than anybody else.

GC>> What do you mean? You won't have to listen to everything. It will be up to you to decide which post to listen to and which not. Each user will have the opportunity to record his post, which will appear next to each post's reply icon. I thought of this process when finding that in a lot of posts I use a program called "Natural Voice Reader", which reads any text I choose to. Unfortunately, having a computer reading text is not as clear as a human would be.

As I continued to think about Ayn Rand's article, I managed to understand what was it that she was wrong about. Instead of discussing the consequences, I'll go to the basis of my argumant. Rand's mistake consists of two essential basic flaws: 1. Regarding the president - Not differentiating between the concept of 'President' and of 'Leader'. 2. On the essence of famininity vs. masculinity - Accepting the invalid concept (invalid on the basis of definition by non-essentials) of 'Musclinity'. Is this clear or should I explain? (I'm not going to sink down to a level of personal insults, I'll only respond to rational argumants.)

It was not my intention to get into some kind of a pissing match. I'm am a citizen in Israel, learned the basis of those "basic laws". I also know that up to this day, nothing compels the judicial system to apply those rules, which means that they are treated as regular laws. on June 13, 1950, the Kneset (parliament), excepted the following resolution: 'The constitution and law' committee has to propose a constitution draft to the state. Over the years, a few Suggestions were made of what the constitution WILL consist of, but even now, there is no constitution.

This is a question to the moderator: I have just thought of an idea, though I am not sure of how to actually apply it in practice. The idea is that every post on the forum could be read and recorded by the writer (optional), and be saved as a file which could be attached to the post. Of course, a new structure will have to be created in order to make everything more comfortable and appealing than a standard email attachment. Does it sound practical?

Geoff27, I completely agree with you on the term "archaic". People tend to forget (especially after listening to Peikoff's course on logic, more specifically, logical fallacies), that just as you can't determine an assertion's truth by the TIME it was proposed, you cannot claim that by using the alleged fallacy, your opponent proves that you're right. It is absurd. Archaic, is an excelent term in this context because any discrimination between a man and a woman on their value judgements has no basis. It is true that men and women have metaphysical differences. Most of the male's sex organs are external. But HERE is where the difference ends. All one has to do in order to see how wrong was Rand's notion regarding the act of conquering, is to observe any relationship among consenting adults. And what about homosexual relationships? what happendes their? Ayn rand simply dissmissed the idea as an abnormal behaviour *(!) - Again, just look around you. The fact is that rational values are detemind by far more than just physical appearence. Sexual attraction is one of the highest of ones value judgments and is composed of his mind AND his body. Regarding the president's job, I will reffer you to the following excerpt:

Not really. Israel has NO constitution whatsoever. A constitution is a system of laws according to which a state is governed. What Israel HAS is a bunch of contradictory, socialistic SUGGETIONS, made shortly after it's establishment. As suggestions usually treated, sometimes the judicial system accepts them and other times, ignores them blatantly.

Kant's goal was to integrate science and religion. He took it for granted that both are equally valid. Both Kant and Hume had set up to destroy the self-certainty of man. Their methods? Hume, by skepticizing the law of causality. Kant, by using mind-paralyzing writings. Hume, obviously was easier to refute because he was clearer, but those who were confident enough, had no problem refuting Kant as well (it is only a question of learning to learn Kant. I reffer you to any refference to Kant made by Ayn Rand).

Indeed, an error on my part. It was not ment as disrespect, I love Ayn Rand and I agree with her in every issue but that (and also the way she dismisses homosexuality as "abnormal"). I would be happy to present my arguments, but first ---- Stephen, I see no reason at all for such a rude manner. If you want to discuss the issue I welcome you to it but keep it civilized. Betsy, how can psychology not be part of philosophy?

Ohh really? Well I assume you have'nt read Rand's "About A Woman President", I'm an objectivist, but her arguments in it are so weak that it doesn't take a genius to indetify all the cracks... just read it.

Not true. I reffer you to the following link: http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Greenspan.html excerpts: "Greenspan (once) recommended to a Senate committee that all economic regulations should have fixed lifespans. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) accused him of 'playing with fire, or indeed throwing gasoline on the fire,' and asked him whether he favored a similar provision in the Fed's authorization. Greenspan coolly answered that he did. Do you actually mean, demanded the senator, that the Fed 'should cease to function unless affirmatively continued?' 'That is correct, sir,' Greenspan responded." "The Senator could scarcely believe his ears. 'Now my next question is, is it your intention that the report of this hearing should be that Greenspan recommends a return to the gold standard?' Greenspan responded, 'I've been recommending that for years, there's nothing new about that. It would probably mean there is only one vote in the Federal Open Market Committee for that, but it is mine.'" Written by R.W. Bradford at 'Liberty Magazine' as quoted by the editor of 'The Gilded Opinion' Is he a Francisco? only times will tell...