Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Live forever or die trying

Regulars
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Live forever or die trying

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 09/01/1980

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SF Bay Area
  • Interests
    philosophy
  1. Check out this regulation from the Sunnyvale, CA Public Safety site: WTF?!
  2. Oh yes. You are getting SPAMMED. Bahaha. =) I kid. How goes the whole immortality deal?

  3. . Are we still debating whether gay people are born that way, or whether then can choose to stop being gay? The same goes for bisexual people. I'm not sure a distinction is made here, so I'll try to clarify: polyamorous relationship = romantic non-monogamy, sexual non-monogamy monogamous relationship = romantic monogamy, sexual monogamy swinging = romantic monogamy, sexual non-monogamy The comment above seems to make a false dichotomy between polyamory and monogamy. There is a third choice: swinging. The fact that bisexual people enjoy (not "need") to have sex with both genders is a obvious to me as homosexual people enjoying sex with the same gender. If you see a difference between these two sexes, then I'll look for scientific research. Although if I were to go to an LGBT meeting and claim that I need scientific research on that, those people will laugh in my face. That sounds more like being bi-curious. Why is committing desirable? To me, it seems like a self-imposed (or partner-imposed!) limitation. I don't want my partner to commit sexually to me because she is forbidden from exploring other options; that would be the equivalent of a sexual embargo, and completely contrary to the spirit of free trade. I'd like her to choose me because I'm a better option (weighing in the cost of searching for other options etc.) Now, of course someone bisexual could commit to one partner, and not act on their desire/need for the other gender. But why, exactly, limit themselves, and why smother that desire? Anyways, the Wikipedia entry on Swinging, and John Stossel's research in particular, make a very good case for romantic monogamy coupled with sexual non-monogamy (more precisely, shared sexual experiences).
  4. My friend did break up with that boyfriend, but let's get back on topic: What do you mean by "settle down"? I assumed "Be sexually exclusive with". In that case, my post simply says that a bisexual person who becomes exclusive with a partner of a given gender, will never be able to have sex with the other gender. For many truly bisexual people, this (i.e. just desiring sex with the other (non-settled-down-with) gender, vs. fulfilling the desire) is a silly limitation. Also, you haven't addressed the fact that some perfectly rational folks have a desire for threesomes. For them, sexual monogamy is clearly not the best choice.
  5. I have a very good female friend who is bisexual. She is not at all content just desiring women. In a past relationship, her boyfriend demanded sexual exclusivity, and she resented the limitation. The materialization of her desire for both genders is a necessity for her. That is a fact. Of course, she could give up desiring women, just to be sexually monogamous to her man, but why? That would equate to heterosexual people becoming asexual: why?
  6. Catherine, That is a fortunate case because your romantic and sexual needs needs do not extend beyond the realm of one person. But, as a poster on Dan's blog pointed out, what if someone is bisexual or likes threesomes?
  7. Yes, that was me. I simply intended to link to the review, not pretend I'm Laura Kipnis. I apologize for the outcome.
  8. As mrocktor demonstrated here, "The value of this study to our discussion is precisely zero." because the sample was taken from a monogamous population indoctrinated into monogamy, for which any straying would create immense guilt. No wonder that sexual satisfaction increased with lack of guilt. However, having sex with someone other than your spouse doesn't trigger guilt in swinger couples. See this study, The Case of Swingers - Today's Alternative Marriage Styles which concludes that "If swingers have found a way to stabilize relationships, prolong family ties, and enrich the lives of couples we would be remiss if we did not take their lifestyle and their redefinition of monogamous love seriously." So let's compare the sexual satisfaction of those who did... not suffer from guilt, to that of swingers. How about that? "Among swingers, is there a relationship between swinging and marital happiness? Two questions on the survey – one which asked about their relationships before swinging and the other about them after swinging – are cross-tabulated in Table 15. As the data shows, 62.6% of swingers found that swinging improved their marriages/relationships, 35.6% said their relationships stayed about the same, and only 1.7% said they became less happy. Even among those who said their marriages were "Very Happy" prior to swinging nearly half (49.7%) said they became happier. Among those with the most unhappy marriages 90.4% said their relationship became happier after swinging. It appears that, at least among the sample of swingers used in this research, swinging tends to improve the perceived quality of the couples' marriages regardless of how satisfying it was before swinging." Interesting confirmation here: Science News / Gene Linked To Commitment-phobia
  9. I hope we are not debating the use of anesthetics here? They're medical devices that only masochistic religious fanatics refuse to use. Anesthetics, used for their intent, are OK, period. Does anyone disagree? PS: I think (and hope) Phlegmak was being sarcastic.
  10. This is what I would say as well, if given the opportunity to do so. It's tactful, yet honest, reassuring for her, and the son preserves his integrity. A lesson learned from this is that such dilemmas are rarely so dichotomic in reality; and the scenario should be clear in order to not allow for middle ground, at the risk of becoming unrealistic. The only way the initial dilemma in this thread could survive would be if the mom could only perceive a "Yes" or "No" answer. Imagine she has become deaf and blind, and she asks the son: "My son, hold my hand tight if you found someone to marry, and that will allow me to die happy". In that case, fletch's reply: seems quite compelling.
  11. I assume you mean "how they choose to react to the lie". Good point, but what was the cause for the mom's reaction to the lie? The son's lie. The son would therefore take credit for his own action, whose result he anticipated, not for the result itself. Interesting point. I think what needs to be clarified here is the distinction between honesty and integrity. We agreed that honesty can and should be breached when one's own life is at stake (the gun-to-my-temple-do-you-renounce-objectivism scenario). "Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality." - “The Ethics of Emergencies”, The Virtue of Selfishness, 46. Now if the son's value of comforting his mother in her final moments is higher than his value of being honest even in one single occasion when such honesty would deeply hurt his mother in her final moments, he would actually preserve his integrity by lying to her in that unique occasion. The question is, how does the son rationally balance these two values?
  12. Agreed. It has always bothered me that I had no choice but to be raised, and hence owe my upbringing to my caretakers. Sadly, that is a fact of reality, and it is conceivable that a mother may at some point, directly or tacitly, appeal to the principle of trade and demand that her son repay her in some fashion. In this debate, that repayment would involve the son lying, once, just before the mother dies. It has been agreed before in the thread that in the long run, truth is the best policy. I think that it is the best policy even in the medium, or short run. However, the scenario in this debate is of a one-off, immediate run kind. The son will never have to keep facts straight in his mind or switch gears. It's a one-time lie. The American Heritage® Dictionary defines white lie as a "well-intentioned untruth", which is exactly what it is for the mother. As I explained in my previous post, and counter-refuted above, the son does not end up believing his own lie, he is not lying to himself, and therefore the truth about such an important part of his life (finding a wife) is still true to him. No lie at all here, white or not. This is a classic slippery-slope argument - where do we draw the line - and also exactly what I'm trying to refine as a principle by starting this debate, which I subtitled When would objectivists be justified to lie?. One of the important differences I see is that in case of the terminally ill mother, there are no ulterior consequences (I've addressed already why the son needs not live the rest of his life with the guilt of having lied at that moment; if others are present and hear the lie, the son would explain the rationality of his decision). Click the "+Quote" button under each post you want to quote, then the "Post reply" button at the bottom of the thread (not any other "Reply" button). Being comforting to someone dying is also a sign of love and respect. That honesty should not be dictated by what they want, I agree. The sound *would be* dishonest should he choose to lie. Let's say the terminally ill mother asks the son to tell her what the weather is like outside. If the son, for some reason, refuses, then he has breaches his integrity, as long as he claims to love his mother. ("If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral." - “The Ethics of Emergencies”, The Virtue of Selfishness, 46). Refusing to comfort the dying mother, an action clearly damaging to her, is a breach of integrity, regardless of the nature of such comfort. However, if the mother asked the son to kill someone, there would be no debate. Why? Because the breach of integrity associated with comforting her would be much higher than the breach associated with NOT comforting her. Therefore, the primary issue upon which we may disagree here is "What breaches integrity most?". I'm curious how we could rationally determine that in a manner independent of the emotions of the persons involved. Yes. I've been confronted with emotional appeal before and want to learn to be able to make a rational argument to myself again the emotional appeal. In this case, the best arguments I've collected for telling the truth are: an irrational demand from a less-than-rational person disqualifies that person from deserving good treatment. Therefore the son can say the hurtful truth and the mother deserves the consequences. (post #31)"A good mother teacher her son that integrity is more important than other people's emotions. [...] If a mother can be happy with such a sacrifice, with a line of behavior that destroys her son's self-esteem, then she is not a good mom." and hence deserves to suffer the consequences of being told a hurtful truth. (cop-out) (post #17) if the mother has been constantly nagging the son about getting married and the son tolerated that, he now has to face the consequences, tell the truth, and witness her painful reaction. Rebuttal: 1) the mom might make the "got married?" demand for the first time on her deathbed; 2) the son has learned the lesson already at that moment, and can lie and never tolerate such behavior again Slippery slope. The differences are so enormous between the debate scenario and violence that I'm not sure I even need to start addressing them.
  13. I think that in normal circumstances, accepting an unpleasant truth can be much easier than when one is on their deathbed, living the last minutes of their life. If you ever held in your arms someone you cared about, who was in excruciating pain, feeling the terror of death in every fiber of their being, you'd understand. If you never did that, you can only imagine how it feels, which is (scientifically) not the same thing. (see Mirror neurons) The person who is dishonest here is the son. However, the son's belief of reality does not change. The son knows very well that he hasn't found a suitable woman to marry. Hence, there is no schism. This also refutes an argument made earlier, that the son would be lying to himself. So the son should spare Mother the truth, help her pass away happy, and move on with full rational knowledge of why he acted this way.
  14. Why would you want to end your memory of someone you care about with their tearful face contorted in a painful grimace? Remember, this is not a rational person, and truth can hurt her to any degree. In this particular scenario, there are no long-term consequences for the mother, because she dies. The only long-term consequence would be for the son, who might feel guilty for saying something he knows as untrue, to help her die happy. But would that guilt be justified? Agreed, dying happy is a small, short-term benefit, compared with dying upset. Doesn't lying to someone who puts a gun to your head mean that you're lying to yourself? In the dog case, this is a good argument: the son should say he'll take care of the dog, and do so. In the "get married" case, the son can say he found someone to marry (when he hasn't), and... ? She doesn't want honesty at that point. I doubt she'd feel honored. What she wants is reassurance and comfort. Has anyone here been near the bed of someone terminally ill in their last moments? A better example would be welcome. The general question is "Aside from being confronted with force, when would it be justifiable to lie?". Gain: emotional relief from watching Mother pass away peacefully Lose: integrity? Really? Does this mean that the son is going to lie in any other situation because this exceptional situation has set a precedent? No. Does he need to live the rest of his life traumatized by this white lie? No. The "regardless" part here invalidates the question. If she had no feelings, duh, the son would tell the truth. Nothing worth talking about. Another perspective: Can this kind of emotional blackmail from Mother be equated with a form of using force? If yes, then the son would be justified in retaliating with the same kind and amount of (emotional) force, such as lying.
  15. We don't live in a rational world. This scenario is very real and also likely, in my particular situation: I may receive the "Have you found a suitable girl yet" question from my grandmother, quite soon. I don't admire my grandmother for her rationality, but for her love in taking care of me as a child. Assuming I haven't found said girl, should I lie or not?
×
×
  • Create New...