Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

Rate this topic


ggdwill

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The showing of a sexual organ to you against your will, because it puts you into a sexual situation against your will, interferes with your ability to select the sexual situations you are going to be in according to your rational judgment.

Seeing a sexual organ is not necessarily a sexual situation. People can want to walk around naked simply because it is comfortable. Are you suggesting that a rational society should make a law to forbid people to walk around naked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fraud is an attempt to interfere with a rational person's pursuit of rational goals, and therefore it is force.

Wrong. Fraud is a breach of contract. Joe agreed to pay you 10,000 dollars for a functioning car, if the car is broken you are in breach of contract, you are keeping his ten grand and you are initiating force against him if you refuse to give them back.

Not because of some vague non-concept such as "interfering with the pursuit of rational goals". A person who irrationally choses not to trade with oyu is interfering with your pursuit of rational goals - and is completely within his rights.

We'll talk again when you post something new.

I'll continue offering the same challenge as long as you continue offering the same nonsense (and I mean "nonsense" litterally).

Seeing a sexual organ is not necessarily a sexual situation. People can want to walk around naked simply because it is comfortable. Are you suggesting that a rational society should make a law to forbid people to walk around naked?

No, he is only suggesting that a law must exist forcing you to get authorization from everyone who might see you before walking around naked. Even if you are in your own house.

The showing of a sexual organ to you against your will, because it puts you into a sexual situation against your will, interferes with your ability to select the sexual situations you are going to be in according to your rational judgment.

Where "sexual situation" is your latest non-concept. I bet it is "a situation where there is something closely related to sex", in keeping with your tight use of definitions.

Nonsense.

mrocktor

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing a sexual organ is not necessarily a sexual situation. People can want to walk around naked simply because it is comfortable. Are you suggesting that a rational society should make a law to forbid people to walk around naked?

In a certain context, just seeing a sexual organ IS sexual. In societies where sexual organs are usually covered, uncovering them (outside of contexts such as doctor's visits, locker rooms, nude beaches, etc. can be considered sexual ipso facto).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent of the accused does not matter in establishing whether the plaintiff's rights have been infringed. To answer the question "Has John stepped on Mary's foot?" you don't have to know whether John meant to step on Mary's foot; all you have to establish is whether or not he did step on her foot.

If the answer is yes, then the next question to determine is whether it was an innocent or willful infringement--whether, in our analogy, John meant to step on Mary's foot. In the case of an innocent infringement, the defendant is not legally guilty, but he is still responsible for the damage done to the plaintiff.

That someone's foot was stepped on, or killed, or feels threatened is established before the trial. It has to be to even have a trial take place, there has to be evidence that someone did something to someone. What the accuser thinks those actions were is the charges filed. The whole point of the trial is to figure out what the accused intended if he was the one that did the deed. Why he should be guilty or not guilty.

You do? During prime time?

Yes, we do. During prime time. Apparently it's fine to do it during NYPD but not fine to do it during the superbowl. So I present to you again. Is it a sexual activity 20 years ago because you don't expect it and not a sexual activity now because you can?

But the meanings of words and gestures are determined by what you call "society," and whether or not an action is rightful often depends on what communications preceded it. The meaning of "Give me your money or I'll kill you" has been established by what you call "society"--does this make your right to your life and property subjective?

Agreed upon definitions of terms so we can communicate are very different than society determining morality.

[edit for clarity]

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I addressed this quite early on in the thread:

You were wrong, you were re-writing what she wrote. Rand was very clear about what she was writing and the terms she used.

this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights the regard as loathsome.
If you find it loathsome, you're offended. If she used the word offensive, she meant offensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can be placed into a sexual situation against your will... it is against her will, therefore it is force.
I should note that causing a woman to perceive something against her will (so long as she isn't physically restrained/defrauded) doesn't itself constitute an "initiation of force" in the legally enforceable sense of the phrase.

[in receiving a sexual invitation,] she doesn't have to perceive or visualize any of the concretes that make up a sexual act... She can reach the "no" without ever thinking about what it's like to sleep with you.
Very heavily edited:

Even if we accept the "against your will = force" argument, are you:

1) making the argument that, after seeing breasts, thinking about myself performing sexual acts is done against my will, or

2) does seeing breasts itself (i.e. regardless of whether I subsequently think about myself in sexual acts) constitute a "sexual situation?"

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a certain context, just seeing a sexual organ IS sexual. In societies where sexual organs are usually covered, uncovering them (outside of contexts such as doctor's visits, locker rooms, nude beaches, etc. can be considered sexual ipso facto).

First of all, notice that you never answered the question. So why quote it?

Secondly, by "necessarily" I mean metaphysically: That human beings are created with brains that automatically associate nudity with sex (nudity--->sex, not sex--->nudity).

Thirdly, to apply your answer to my quoted question, are you suggesting that laws should be made according to society's conventions? So because some Muslim men find it sexual that women go around without covering their entire body, there should be laws forbidding women to dress in short clothes, else they would be sexually harrasing the men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing a sexual organ is not necessarily a sexual situation.

Not necessarily, but sometimes it is.

Are you suggesting that a rational society should make a law to forbid people to walk around naked?

To forbid grown-ups to walk around naked in places where there are other, non-consenting people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To forbid grown-ups to walk around naked in places where there are other, non-consenting people.

Your approach is anti-freedom, and it is not supported.

You suggest that laws should be made according to whims, not according to some objective standard. The whims this time being social conventions. If we follow this logic it means that the laws forbidding Muslim women to dress in short clothes are just, because in their society, an woman's exposed mouth is a sign for a sexual invitation. Interesting how you chose to ignore that question in your reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That someone's foot was stepped on, or killed, or feels threatened is established before the trial.

But the accuser may deny that it was him who stepped on the victim's foot. The trial first has to establish that he did. And if he did, then the next thing to establish is whether it was intentional.

feels threatened

It doesn't matter if the person feels threatened. What matters is whether he is threatened.

Whether an action is or is not a threat may vary depending on the context, but that does not make them subjective, i.e. a matter of feelings. They are a matter of fact.

Yes, we do. During prime time. Apparently it's fine to do it during NYPD but not fine to do it during the superbowl. So I present to you again. Is it a sexual activity 20 years ago because you don't expect it and not a sexual activity now because you can?

And when they first began to show them, did every reasonable person think it was fine and dandy and just what they would expect during prime time? Why did they suddenly begin to think that when, as you acknowledge, 20 years ago they didn't?

The only way people can come to expect such things where they haven't expected them is through a massive disrespect for their rights: no one will expect to see exposed sexual organs in, say, a children's book, until publishers begin to put sexual organs into children's books on a regular basis.

Agreed upon definitions of terms so we can communicate are very different than society determining morality.

In what way does this address my response to your original statement? As a reminder, I was responding to this:

Society and social circumstances do not get to determine if something violates rights or not, an action either does or doesn't.

I disproved your statement by giving a counter-example: that the agreed-upon terms of communication (which are a product of "society") very much do determine if a given action violates rights or doesn't. This is a legal question, not a moral one; my counter-example says that the law does have to take the context of an action into account, and part of that context is the agreed-upon terms of communication, which are what you call "social circumstances." So yes, this is something very different from "society determining morality"--so different that the latter has nothing to do with the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you find it loathsome, you're offended.

If I steal your car, you'll be offended too. That does not turn the right to property into a right not to be offended.

I wonder what you think (and especially what mrocktor thinks) about Miss Rand's next sentence after the one you quoted:

Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.)

Apparently, Miss Rand agrees with me that the implementation of the freedom not to look or listen is not restricted to telling people to close their eyes and walk away. Miss Rand, in a agreement with me, recognizes that if you get to close your eyes at an unwanted sight, it means that you have already seen it.

If she used the word offensive, she meant offensive.

Sure she did. :devil: But she did not say that these things should be illegal because those people find them offensive. They should be illegal because they violate the right to sexual integrity of a certain group of people, among whom are those who find these things offensive. The "offensive" part is a way of referring to the people whose rights you are protecting, not the justification for the legal action.

Suppose you live in a society of commies, where most people think it's fine to take things from other people. You argue that, even though theft is fine with a majority of people, there is still a need to protect the rights of those who find theft offensive. Does this make you an advocate of a right not to be offended, or does this make you an advocate of property rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way people can come to expect such things where they haven't expected them is through a massive disrespect for their rights

Do you not see the absurdity of this proclamation? Here's a list. Maybe you can tell me which one stands out?

Massive disrespect for rights:

1. Eminent Domain

2. Taxation

3. Zoning

4. A boob being shown on TV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should note that causing a woman to perceive something against her will (so long as she isn't physically restrained/defrauded) doesn't itself constitute an "initiation of force" in the legally enforceable sense of the phrase.

Correct, it doesn't. If a doctor tells a woman that she has cancer, that is not an initiation of force (assuming that she actually does have cancer), even though it very much isn't what she wants to hear.

But the qualifier "so long as she isn't physically restrained/defrauded" is not exhaustive. An exhaustive qualifier would be "so long as her rights are not infringed." Force means disrespect for a person's rights--any of her rights. Physical restraint and fraud are not the only forms of disrespecting someone's rights.

are you:

1) making the argument that, after seeing breasts, thinking about myself performing sexual acts is done against my will, or

2) does seeing breasts itself (i.e. regardless of whether I subsequently think about myself in sexual acts) constitute a "sexual situation?"

#2, with the qualifier that there are some contexts in which it is not a sexual situation and there are contexts in which it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your approach is anti-freedom, and it is not supported.

Miss Rand thinks that my approach (which is also hers) is the pro-freedom one. See the quote above about that certain corollary!

You suggest that laws should be made according to whims, not according to some objective standard.

If freedom is a whim, then I guess I'm a whim-worshipper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism Forever, as I was posting on another thread I thought of a possible way you are misinterpreting miss Rand's statement, which does lead to your conclusion. The error is dropping the time variable.

Here is her statement again:

Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.)

(Oh, and can you please provide the full paragraph?)

If I don't like seeing something someone is showing me, I have a right to not be chased around with that thing in front of my eyes. If that person is chasing after me and forcing me to see what I have told him I do not wish to see, then he is violating my right: My right to use my senses to perceive reality.

However, the right to not see that which I don't want to see does not mean that the man should never have showed me something I might not want to see. Just because I don't want to see something, or a bunch of people do not want to see something does not mean other people should be forced to act to please them. It just means, they should not force them to see nothing but that thing.

If a naked man chased me down the street after I have told him I am not interested in seeing him, he would be violating my right. But just by showing me for the first time, something that I don't like, he is not violating my rights. And just by walking naked in the street he is not violating my rights, because I can still look at other things.

The time variable is important. "Forcing to see" does not mean for the first time, for a moment; it means continually, against one's will which was well communicated, when one is given no other option but to continue seeing one's naked body (or whatever).

Think I'm on to your error... Let me know about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, by "necessarily" I mean metaphysically: That human beings are created with brains that automatically associate nudity with sex

Here you raise a crucial issue.

Man is born with a "blank slate" mind; he doesn't automatically associate anything with anything else. He doesn't even associate a gun pointed at his face with a threat to his life and property. He has to learn all these associations.

And how does he learn? If he is rational, he will learn objectively, and all his associations will be based on objective reality. He will associate the Sun with warmth, because the Sun IS warm. He will associate the gun pointed at his face with a threat to his life and property, because it IS a threat to his life and property. He will associate a certain kind of smile with good will, because that kind of smile IS a symbol of good will. He will associate the exposure of sexual organs with a sexual situation, because it IS a sexual situation.

It is true that all of these except the first are "social," in the sense that they could have been otherwise if mankind had "traveled a different path." A smile could have been a symbol of aggression, a birthday card could have evolved to have the shape of a gun, and clothes could have been reserved for the most intimate moments between a couple of lovers. It could have been that way, but it IS this way, and there is nothing subjective or "social" about recognizing that it IS this way. Neither a man who wants to survive qua man nor a legislator who wants to be just can afford to evade these facts.

If you think some of these things are irrational, you are free to recommend an alternative. For example, if you think people would benefit a lot from taking a smile to be a sign of aggression and expressing good will in an entirely different way, convince them of it rationally--and as soon as people begin to adopt your new ideas, the law will (in a rational society) recognize them just like it recognized the old ones. Nudists have in fact been trying to accomplish something like this, except that they've had zero success with the rest of the population because they haven't been able to give people any rational, selfish reasons to stop wearing clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Oh, and can you please provide the full paragraph?)

Unfortunately, I don't have the original text myself, I'm just copying from other people quoting it. (I guess I now know what I will next order from the Ayn Rand Bookstore! :worry:) Here's the full quote that I have--not sure if it's the full paragraph:

Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality
And then of course there is the original "offensive material" that started this discussion:

No one has the right to do whatever he pleases on a public street (nor would he have such a right on a privately owned street).... Similarly, the rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as "For Adults Only," may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

So it seems like Miss Rand thinks about the "time variable" the same way I do. If it were OK to show you the sexual material for the first time, then there would be no need for warning signs or legal restraints on posters--but Miss Rand is all for them, so it looks like she does not think it's OK to show you the sexual material for the first time.

If I don't like seeing something someone is showing me, I have a right to not be chased around with that thing in front of my eyes. If that person is chasing after me and forcing me to see what I have told him I do not wish to see, then he is violating my right: My right to use my senses to perceive reality.

I'm glad we agree on at least this much, although you should prepare for mrocktor crucifying you for this! :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if the person feels threatened. What matters is whether he is threatened.

Whether an action is or is not a threat may vary depending on the context, but that does not make them subjective, i.e. a matter of feelings. They are a matter of fact.

Was watching a show last night where two detectives were trying to figure out what the morality of the song 'pop goes the weasle' was. They asked a couple of people they were interviewing/question "Do you know what pop goes the weasle mean?". Some people tried to answer, some took it as a threat from the detectives. They felt they were threatened while the intent of the dectives was not.

And when they first began to show them, did every reasonable person think it was fine and dandy and just what they would expect during prime time? Why did they suddenly begin to think that when, as you acknowledge, 20 years ago they didn't?

The only way people can come to expect such things where they haven't expected them is through a massive disrespect for their rights: no one will expect to see exposed sexual organs in, say, a children's book, until publishers begin to put sexual organs into children's books on a regular basis.

So are you saying it is still a violation of rights even if it has become expected?

I disproved your statement by giving a counter-example: that the agreed-upon terms of communication (which are a product of "society") very much do determine if a given action violates rights or doesn't. This is a legal question, not a moral one; my counter-example says that the law does have to take the context of an action into account, and part of that context is the agreed-upon terms of communication, which are what you call "social circumstances." So yes, this is something very different from "society determining morality"--so different that the latter has nothing to do with the subject matter.

Wrong. No matter what words society uses, it is the concepts the words represent and the intent or deeds of those saying them that violate rights, not the words themselves. What a society has determined to be the agreed upon definition of terms is very different than society deciding it's ok to be nude at this place because we expect it and not to be nude at this place because we don't expect it. That is society dictating morality, and that is what you are advocating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way people can come to expect such things where they haven't expected them is through a massive disrespect for their rights

So, the right to "sexual integrity" is a right protected by preventing people from seeing "something related to sex" that they do not expect. However by violating that right enough, they come to expect it - and thus it ceases to be a violation. This just keeps getting better and better.

Clearly nonsense can only lead to more nonsense.

I disproved your statement by giving a counter-example: that the agreed-upon terms of communication (which are a product of "society") very much do determine if a given action violates rights or doesn't. (...)

Nonsense.

Yes, communication may be part of the context when evaluating whether some action was a violation of rights - but the "social convention" of language has absolutely nothing to do with what defines a given act as a violation of rights.

EDIT: Lathanar made this point much more eloquently in the post above this one.

If I steal your car, you'll be offended too. That does not turn the right to property into a right not to be offended.

When you steal a car you violate a legitimate right - property - which is rationally derived from man's nature. Yes, we may be ofended too. Then you remove the violation of rights (theft), leave only the offense and claim the two are the same.

False analogy.

I wonder what you think (and especially what mrocktor thinks) about Miss Rand's next sentence after the one you quoted

She also said, as has been quoted in this thread (and ignored by you):

Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper -- but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality
Clearly her writing on the issue is conflicted. It also offers no argument to support that such a right exists and should be protected. Between reason and Ayn Rand's unsupported opinion, I choose reason.

Apparently, Miss Rand agrees with me that the implementation of the freedom not to look or listen is not restricted to telling people to close their eyes and walk away.

If so, she was wrong.

They should be illegal because they violate the right to sexual integrity of a certain group of people (...)

Ayn Rand never defined "sexual integrity" nor demonstrated that it is a valid right. If she had, you would be quoting her on it. This is your idea.

Suppose you live in a society of commies (...)

And the same false analogy is repeated. Stop using examples where there are objectively defined rights violations.

You are being challenged to identify and support the right you claim to be protecting in the first place. Since you have identified nothing, only offense is objectively present - thus you are arguing a right not to be offended.

Think I'm on to your error... Let me know about it.

Multiple people have been on to his error for pages and pages of posts. Welcome to the club.

mrocktor

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not see the absurdity of this proclamation? Here's a list. Maybe you can tell me which one stands out?

Massive disrespect for rights:

1. Eminent Domain

2. Taxation

3. Zoning

4. A boob being shown on TV

That in no way shows the alleged "absurdity of this proclamation." Your example is like saying:

Disrespect for rights:

1) petty theft

2) taxes

3) contract fraud

4) a massive nuclear bomb that kills several million people

and then using this example to try to show that petty theft, taxes, and contract fraud are not violations of rights. Nudity on TV is quite different from nudity in real life, as there is no way one could conceive of nudity on TV as a threat.

Edited by LaszloWalrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Forcing to see" does not mean for the first time, for a moment; it means continually, against one's will which was well communicated, when one is given no other option but to continue seeing one's naked body (or whatever).

Exaclty - it means impeding you from taking action to avoid seeing something. As such it is a clear violation of rights whether it is locking you in a room or stapling your eyelids open.

I don't crucify people who make sense CF.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what you think (and especially what mrocktor thinks) about Miss Rand's next sentence after the one you quoted:

I don't agree with it right now and I have been trying to find supporting work from her to see how she comes to this conclusion.

But she did not say that these things should be illegal because those people find them offensive. They should be illegal because they violate the right to sexual integrity of a certain group of people, among whom are those who find these things offensive. The "offensive" part is a way of referring to the people whose rights you are protecting, not the justification for the legal action.

Where oh where in what she wrote on this subject did she say sexual integrity? Lets look at the parts already posted on this thread, I don't have the material here:

Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper -- but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality

No one has the right to do whatever he pleases on a public street (nor would he have such a right on a privately owned street).... Similarly, the rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as "For Adults Only," may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

(emphasis mine)

That is her argument, the right not to be offended by seeing something loathsome. This is not sexual integrity, nor according to her is the rules for posting warnings a matter of morality, but of ettiquette. Law created to satisfy social ettiquette.

If I steal your car, you'll be offended too. That does not turn the right to property into a right not to be offended.

...

Suppose you live in a society of commies, where most people think it's fine to take things from other people. You argue that, even though theft is fine with a majority of people, there is still a need to protect the rights of those who find theft offensive. Does this make you an advocate of a right not to be offended, or does this make you an advocate of property rights?

Theft is not being offended, stop trying to sidetrack it. She's talking about the sight of pornography being loathsome/offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was watching a show last night where two detectives were trying to figure out what the morality of the song 'pop goes the weasle' was. They asked a couple of people they were interviewing/question "Do you know what pop goes the weasle mean?". Some people tried to answer, some took it as a threat from the detectives. They felt they were threatened while the intent of the dectives was not.

That's very nice, but what conclusion do you expect me to draw from this?

So are you saying it is still a violation of rights even if it has become expected?

I am saying that the process by which it becomes expected is a violation of rights.

No matter what words society uses, it is the concepts the words represent and the intent or deeds of those saying them that violate rights, not the words themselves.

Sure.

What a society has determined to be the agreed upon definition of terms is very different than society deciding it's ok to be nude at this place because we expect it and not to be nude at this place because we don't expect it.

(emphasis mine)

Society can't make decisions. As Margaret Thatcher put it, "There is no such thing as society." Some people may make decisions which they say are "in the name of society," and they may use force "in the name of society," but that is not what Miss Rand and I are advocating here. We are advocating that the law should recognize certain objective facts about the nature of man.

That is society dictating morality

You seem to be unaware of the distinction between morality and rights. Morality tells you how to survive qua man; it pertains to each individual independently; it applies to you even if you are alone on an island. Rights, on the other hand, tell you how to apply the virtue of justice towards the people you come into contact with, and therefore only become relevant when there are at least two of you on the island. Rights are based on morality, but there is much more to morality than just rights. A rightful action is not necessarily moral, or in other words: there are many immoral actions that are rightful.

In a legal discussion like this one, the subject matter is the specifics of how the government should codify and enforce rights. Whether a given action is moral is irrelevant to this discussion, since there are many immoral actions that are rightful. What we are trying to establish is whether the action in question--exposing your sexual organs to an unsuspecting, non-consenting person--is rightful. This discussion has nothing to do with morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether a given action is moral is irrelevant to this discussion, since there are many immoral actions that are rightful. What we are trying to establish is whether the action in question--exposing your sexual organs to an unsuspecting, non-consenting person--is rightful. This discussion has nothing to do with morality.

There should be no laws against anything that cannot be proven as immoral. This discussion has everything to do with morality:

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

You are wrong, again.

mrocktor

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...