d180586

The fact IS that STEPHEN brought up this deterministic argument(whether he chooses to aknowlegde it or not) to support HIS opinion. It is also a FACT that the Nazies used THIS SAME argument(applied to races) to support their racism. These are undeniable facts(available to anyone). Tomer simply stated a fait accompli. Stephen is stating a deterministic view. He sets himself up when he points out that the bottom line is that consciouseness is volition, and then suggests that there are differences affecting our mental behavior(in other words, our free will). Who is denying his nature? --- Stephen, let me ask you something- are you going to answer to the point?? You are being a bully. It doesn't matter wheather you use a formal register(with your passive-aggressive rhetoric and unrelated to the discussion, personal cynisism for example) or foul language(when you insult someone on a personal level). (Keep in mind that whenever suggested that you were out of line, you became rather panicky).I don't care wheather you act this way towords everyone or just towords one person because you think he's stupid, this is not adequate to a civilized adult society. I went down to this level once, it was not pretty. --- Just because the "Godwin's Law" exist, doesn't mean every person addressing Nazism has nothing to say. This is a dubious fallacy. --- Now, I ask again- are you going to answer to the point, or attack me instead?

You didn't understand my question. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'll rephrase- I want to know if what you mean is that the great trust needed in order that she can let go is because she has to be sure that he won't hurt her. Am I correct? That's all for now.

Whatever he wants? NEVER! How can you let him do what he wants? What if you don't like it? ----- I don't understand why you're saying she needs such a great trust, respect and admiration towords her man in order to have sex with him. The only thing I can think of is that it is required since he hase the ability to make it violant and traumatic for her, and she needs to trust him in order to let him get this close. Am I right? If not, please explain. I don't understand. It was not an attempt to diagnose anything about you. ----- You wrote in this thread to someone: You know, a man can be taken by force by other men too... It's true that he can put up a fight- so can a woman.

Women have muscles too and they could get fairly strong. Because of this fact, 'Masculinity' is not a concept that can distinguish man. 'Manliness' is a concept to distinguish men. Oxford English Dictionary is not a reliable source since it was not composed according to the definition rules of concept formation. One example is that a 'Female' according to Oxford is "Of the sex that can give birth". A woman that cannot give birth is still associated to that sex, but by what chracteristics? This is a definition by non-essentials. Giving birth isn't a distinguishing characteristic. AM I BLAMING YOU? That is an assertion, not an argument. Unsupported assertions carry no intellectual weight. all you say is that I'm wrong. What I mean is that according to the definition I'v built(guided by the definition rules of concept formation), 'Musculinity' is not the opposite of 'Femininity', 'Musclinity' cannot be used to describe exclusivly men, the correct concept to describe the the men qualities is 'Manliness' and that 'Musculinity' is irrelevant to our discussion. Are we clear?

What do you mean by "Mental set"? Also, why do you think that a woman, who is the value to be gained and kept, can't feel the same about a man? Is it not mutual? I'm aware of the romantic apeall of where you're coming from, I used to agree with you. That untill I realized that everything you can say about a man, you can say about a woman as well(except physical differences), and everything you can say about a man's relation to women, is applicable vise versa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if not speaking in strict definitions, I think what you see as the men-women relation is the strong handsome man, the hero with the penetrating eyes and bold look on his face carring in his strong arms the tender, beautiful, delicate woman. Or some romantic scene such as this(you know what I mean . About every romantic encounter between Rearden and Dagny is a good example). It doesn't contradict what I'm saying. A woman can be delicate and well groomed(like a gentle flower, if you wish...) and her man can be, well, he can be Franciso(saving the trouble of describing a hero in length ). It can be a victory to him, having such a woman. It is a great value gained and kept. The thing is that it is a victory to her too, she too has gained a value. They are a hero and a heroine, for each one of them it's a triumph- being worthy of the other person, being good enough to earn his/hers love and sexual affection. Do you understand what I'm saying? It doesn't cancle all the wonderful little gestures that you probably get from your husbend. My boyfriend is a wonderful gentleman too and he loves to pamper me, he is a heroic figure to me and I love all his gestures. This does not mean that men and women are essentially different in a since other than the physical. It is true that he has to conquer me, he has to be worthy of me, he must be a hero. It is also true that I have to conquer him as well, I have to work very hard to earn his love and affection. I have in this point, two excerpts from the article that I would like to refer to. Why can this not be true in both directions of the two gendres? Now tell me what you think of the next paragraph: Heroine worship is a demanding virtue: a man has to be worthy of it and of the heroine he worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, he has to be her equal; then the object of his worship is specifically her Femininity, not any human virtue he might lack. Do you object it? Excerpts from "About a Woman President" by AR, VOR pg. 268

I'll rephrase: Now think of your bodyguard- You want him/her to be strong, intelligent, brave, rational, HE/SHE SHOULD DEFINITLY NOT BE A PERSON YOU LOOK DOWN ON. After you hire him/her, you don't bother him/her with his/her work(perhaps, after giving him/her the guid lines). You know he's/she's trained and you trust him/her to come up with the best defense tactics and you leave to him/her the professional considerations(and of course, if he/she slacks at the job, you replace him/her ). But he/she is not your leader. He/she does not lead you just like a president does not lead you.

About the concept of 'Masculinity'- I think the problem is that it is being used to distinguish men, or to describe a manly attribute. If you don't know what is the percise definition of this concept and you try to build it according to the concept formation rules of definitions, you would get the following: Masculinity(noun)- A physical quality(genus), describing the attribute of possessing strong muscles(differentia). (I'm not sure about the words 'quality' and 'attribute', English is not my native language and these two are the best I found, I hope you understand what I mean) This is what I think Tomer means by definition by non essentials. The concept has nothing in it to describe something exclusivly manly. I know that the wrong definition and the wrong association are well routed in our culture and it has been for a long time. In all the dictionaries I opened, it is described as manly. I assume you know that any woman(if she wishes to) can be stronger than any man(despite of evolutionary differences that make us weaker to start with and more vulnerable). This is my main point- the association with men is wrong and non essential. I think what should be the disscudsion is Manliness and Femininity, leaving 'Masculinity' aside. (Then you will discover that the differences are strictly physical, and that all else is due to individual personalities) ------ About the president not being a leader. I'll tell you what I think, tell me if this is what you meant(Tomer). The president is the leader of every other governmental employee, but he is not the leader of the citizens. The president(and all of the governmental institute) is to work for the citizens as their bodyguard(I suggest to those who disagree to read again "The Nature of Government" by AR). AR calls it the "agent" or "servant" of the citizens. She summarize the role of the government in one sentence- Now think of your bodyguard- You want him to be strong, intelligent, brave, rational, HE SHOULD DEFINITLY NOT BE A MAN YOU LOOK DOWN ON. After you hire him, you don't bother him with his work(perhaps, after giving him the guid lines). You know he's trained and you trust him to come up with the best defense tactics and you leave to him the professional considerations(and of course, if he slacks at the job, you replace him). But he is not your leader. He does not lead you just like a president does not lead you.

CF, Ok, you're right.

I think you got this a little wrong. The president and the government act according to objective rules. In an Ideal situation, personal judgment on their behalf would be almost entirly irrelevant. I think this is the point, and this is why they are compared to a mechanism. Do you disagree?

This is mainly to AutoJC. I hope what I'm writing now will make the issue clear once and for all, and you will see that semantics have nothing to do with it. I live in Israel, both Tomer and I are aware of the basic laws of our country since all students learn them in school over the years. What we also learn in school, and see everyday in our own eyes is that the government takes the right to ignore these rules according to its momentary needs. You posted a link specifying our basic laws. To make it easier, I bring excerpts: (Italics mine) This is one example, from 'Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty'. They are called "Limitation Paragraphs". Do I have to explain what this means? In short- it means they are not absuluts. And just to let you know, about patagraph 12- Israel is in "Emergency state" since it was established. We live here, we experience it on our flash everyday. I don't understand your persistence on calling our basic laws "a constitution", they are not(theyr'e the best wev'e got, but they're not a constitution). Our government is not even trying to hide the fact that we don't have a constitution, it's a well known fact. This is mainly because of the religious people here, they insist it should come out of the bible. So your'e saying that its meaning is the same as constitution and all the rest is semantics- IT IS NOT. Are there any parts of your constituion saying when it is permissible to condradict all the other parts of it? I'm talking, of course, not about two laws contradicting each other(we have planty of that too), but about a part of a law saying when this law itself could be ignored. Check for yourself- read about the battle to a constitution, about all the resolutions to write one(non came true), about all the usless committees appointed just for this purpose. Also, check in archives, maybe in our high court decrees and old newspapers for violations(well, "legitimate" violations, according to the law itself) of those basic rules.

Alright then. Report it.

Hello Yaniv, Nice to know of another Israeli Objectivist. Where do you live(curious about that medieval town, which one is it? ) I'm looking forword to reading your posts in the forum. Kol tuv... Dolev Btw, if your'e interested(and you seem interesting), my messenger name is like my nick in here- d180586.

Your reason, Stephen, to why his words were insulting to AR and to other Objectivists, was that AR was a genius. Do you suggest that because she was right about A, B, and C then D must also be right? The fact that she was a genius shouldn't mean a thing when one begins evaluating one of her works for the first time. Do you understand that? Otherwise- one is basing his judgment on a fallacy. Why is him saying he find her arguments weak so insulting to you? What do you care? If you think she is right and that only a minor mind would find her wrong about that- Alright then. Why do you bother yourself with that, to the point that a minor mind can insult you? When stupid people that just started reading TFH tell me her characters are flat, I don't care, I just never talk to them again. I can go on, but it won't matter. The reason I wrote in the first place is that I found your post a bit angry and I didn't understand why. Your response to me seems a bit angry too. I did not intend to scold you and I said it ( ) , why did you ignore it and act like I attacked you? I guess my main question is this- Why, in the first place(after he wrote what he wrote about AR), did you make it personal? What good did you think it would bring to take the discussion to personal insults instead of trying to beat him in the intellectual field? I am not fighting you , I don't even know you. remember that if you wish to answer me. Now, taking it back to the intellectual zone- If you may(yes, you wrote youv'e delt with it enough ), I would very much like to hear what you think about "About a Woman President". Do you agree? disagree?

Stephen, I saw how offensive it was for you when someone wrote he thinks AR made a weak argument, without explaining his conclusion. What wonders me is your reaction. You critisize him for that, you write that he is not a proper Objectivist. I would think that the best way to address the issue (assuming one wishes to address it, as you did) in that stage is to simply ask why- Why do you think her arguments are weak? Why do you disagree? Not only that you don't ask, but you write that you are not interested in reading anything he'd write about it(you say- "as to now presenting your arguments..." are you punishing him?). What I don't understand is, why take such an aggressive approach, it seems a bit too sensitive. I don't tend to discuss matters with people that make no interest in hearing my words, especially if it is not the place (and this discussion is origoinaly about Alan Greenspan). I can only assume that this was his thinking (and that, as he said, he was happy to explain if you showed any interest) and that he was somewhat amazed reading your harsh response. About the capital "O" thing- the members in this site are from all over the world. To some, the English language is not their native language. Don't you think it's a bit petty to accuse him for ussing a small "o"? Does this mean he is not an Objectivist (since Objectivists use a captial letter, you wrote...)? I do not wish to offend you, but you regard yorself as a serious Objectivist. As one, I thought you'd want to hear my comments. You could gain a lot more from people if you try being a little more refined, he really did not give you such a reason to be so rude. Sincerely, Dolev

Can you change the constitution on vote? really?? No, this has nothing to do with security. Come to think of it, I don't know why the heck they don't allow a private posting service, but they don't. How about Israel declaring itself as such, is it a a good enough reason? Israel is a socialist democracy. Besides, calling it something else won't change reality. The amounts of money dedicated to welfare has impoverished the country to the state that it would not be able to manage without the financial support it recieves from the US! This country has no money! --- I think it's silly for me to argue weather Israel is good or bad. The facts are that life here are practically unbearable, they are suffocating us. The people that are running our country are plain stupid. Maybe it's the same in the US, I don't know, is that your'e point(AutoJC)? My point is that one shouldn't rush into supporting Israel because he saw a picture of a railroad or a fency skyscraper(btw, we have only about 6 of them, but that's off topic). One should understand that he must support Israel because the alternative is a primitive tribal society. Another good reason I didn't think of myself is