Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

[Capitalism Forever]

Where oh where in what she wrote on this subject did she say sexual integrity?

She didn't; this is part of my elaboration on her ideas. I'm not sure she would agree with all I say, but as far as I can tell, her ideas do have a rational foundation, and I've been trying to express that rational foundation here.

Theft is not being offended, stop trying to sidetrack it.

A sexual situation is not being offended, stop trying to sidetrack it.

That is her argument, the right not to be offended by seeing something loathsome.

Well, that's what you get if you apply "fuzzy logic" to her writing. I already explained that the "those who are offended" only serves to reference the people whose rights you are defending, not as a specification of which right of theirs you are defending. If you read my analogies regarding car theft with an eye to get my point--rather than to contradict me at the earliest apparent opportunity--you'll see what I mean.

To state this as clearly as I can: She did not say "protecting the right not to be offended." She said "protecting the rights of those who are offended."

Let me make one last attempt to illustrate the point with an analogy. Forget about cars this time. Suppose the U.S. government is refusing for some reason to protect the rights of those who were born in North Dakota. When somebody writes about "protecting the rights of those who were born in North Dakota," is this writer advocating "a right to be born in North Dakota" ?

nor according to her is the rules for posting warnings a matter of morality

Which is exactly what I said in my previous post. This is a legal discussion, not a moral one.

but of ettiquette. Law created to satisfy social ettiquette.

Law based on the recognition of the need for etiquette as an objective part of man's nature.

[Lathanar]

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

So it's a violation of rights to change the rules so nudity is expected in a certain circumstance, I'll get back to that later, now to what you side stepped again. If nudity 20 years ago was not expected and today it is, is it still a violation of rights even though it is expected?

Society can't make decisions.

Duh. In this context, society is a majority of people. When a majority of people decide that nudity is unexpected, and thus a violation of rights, and suddenly it is expected and no longer a violation of rights.

You seem to be unaware of the distinction between morality and rights.... This discussion has nothing to do with morality.

Rights are derived from morality. This discussion has everything to do with morality.

[Lathanar]

She didn't; this is part of my elaboration on her ideas. I'm not sure she would agree with all I say, but as far as I can tell, her ideas do have a rational foundation, and I've been trying to express that rational foundation here.

Good, then you'll stop trying to say this is what Rand was saying.

Well, that's what you get if you apply "fuzzy logic" to her writing. I already explained that the "those who are offended" only serves to reference the people whose rights you are defending, not as a specification of which right of theirs you are defending. If you read my analogies regarding car theft with an eye to get my point--rather than to contradict me at the earliest apparent opportunity--you'll see what I mean.

To state this as clearly as I can: She did not say "protecting the right not to be offended." She said "protecting the rights of those who are offended."

What she said was

1) protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome.
2) the freedom not to look or listen
3) rights of those who find pornography offensive

What right is she talking about in #3? The one in #2. What do they wish to not see? The sights of the loathsome in #1. That to me is a clear chain of logic to the right not to see that which one finds loathsome. That is not the right to one's sexual integrity.

[Drew1776]

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.

Well LaszloWalrus let me remind you of the conversation between Lathanar and Capitalism Forever

20 years ago you would never see sexual body parts on prime time network TV. If you did see that, under your logic, it'd be unexpected and a sexual activity and a violation of rights. Now you do see it, so is it now suddenly not a violation of rights because you can expect to see it.

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?

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…

Capitalism Forever labeled sexual organs on prime time TV as being caused by a massive disrespect for rights. He has also characterized the perception of an exposed breast unexpectedly as in violation of and individual’s “sexual integrity.” Capitalism Forever’s posts really have nothing to do with threats just perception.

My example is completely valid. I was attempting to demonstrate 3 instances of massive disrespect for rights, which are grossly immoral because they involve force, compared to a sexual organ being displayed unexpectedly on TV. I was merely demonstrating the absurdity of saying an exposed breast, or even a penis for that matter, on TV is a massive disrespect for rights. If that constitutes a massive disrespect for rights, what of Eminent Domain? Would that be a massive massive disrespect for rights?

Also in your example action number 4 may or may not be moral depending upon the context. Whereas in my example 1-3 are definitely always immoral and any rational human being would not consider the fourth immoral.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Drew1776

[Capitalism Forever]

So it's a violation of rights to change the rules so nudity is expected in a certain circumstance

To change the rules is something different. If the law were changed to say that beaches are topless by default, no one's rights would be violated. You could choose to seek out beaches that explicitly require women to wear bras; you would be perfectly able to maintain your sexual integrity if you want to. But changing the expectations by means of routinely infringing on people's sexual integrity is like securing a swimming pool all for yourself by routinely peeing into the water.

If nudity 20 years ago was not expected and today it is, is it still a violation of rights even though it is expected?

Does peeing into the pool earn you the title of ownership to it?

Duh. In this context, society is a majority of people.

You seem to be under the impression that Objectivism advocates legislation through majority vote, or "democracy." This is not the case; Objectivism holds that laws should be based on objective reality. So "society = majority of people" does not get to decide anything.

Rights are derived from morality. This discussion has everything to do with morality.

Yes, rights are derived from morality, just like I wrote myself. But this does not mean that legislation "dictates morality." It means exactly the opposite: that morality dictates legislation. It's not that "society" makes a law against murder and this makes it immoral to commit murder. Rather: In a rational society, legislators recognize that murder stands in the way of people living a moral life, and this makes them write a law against murder.

And likewise, legislators will recognize that "Clintoning" stands in the way of people living a moral life, and this will make them write laws that protect the right to sexual integrity.

[Lathanar]

Do you get dizzy from talking in circles all the time?

Answer the question, I'll clarify it more.

Nudity on TV 20 years ago was not expected to be seen, and according to you that is a sexual activity and thus a violation of rights. Today nudity is now expected and is shown on TV, is it now not a sexual activity and thus not a violation of rights?

Here's a hint, it's a yes or no answer.

[Capitalism Forever]

What she said was

1) protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome.
2) the freedom not to look or listen
3) rights of those who find pornography offensive

What right is she talking about in #3? The one in #2. What do they wish to not see? The sights of the loathsome in #1. That to me is a clear chain of logic to the right not to see that which one finds loathsome. That is not the right to one's sexual integrity.

You're correct, this is even broader than the right to sexual integrity. It means, for example, that a restaurant in which the decoration on the tables consists of piles of fresh bovine excrement, has to have more than just a "Restaurant" sign hanging outside: it has to inform its prospective customers about that little quirk of its owners.

Such a requirement does not violate anybody's rights: the owners may run their restaurant freely and may put as much ******** on their tables as they please--perhaps even more of it than has been posted on this thread--and the patrons who desire to dine in such a restaurant have every right to enter it, while the patrons with more rational desires can choose to dine elsewhere without mistakenly entering and losing their appetites. And, until and unless I think of a better term, I'll go along with the one Miss Rand chose and say that this protects the right of the unsuspecting, non-consenting diners not to see objectively loathsome things.

[Capitalism Forever]

Answer the question, I'll clarify it more.

Nudity on TV 20 years ago was not expected to be seen, and according to you that is a sexual activity and thus a violation of rights. Today nudity is now expected and is shown on TV, is it now not a sexual activity and thus not a violation of rights?

Here's a hint, it's a yes or no answer.

Here's a hint for you, pal: Just because unexpectedly seeing something is a sexual activity, it doesn't mean that expectedly seeing the same thing is never a sexual activity. "If A, then B" does not imply "If not A, then not B."

[Lathanar]

Here's a hint for you, pal: Just because unexpectedly seeing something is a sexual activity, it doesn't mean that expectedly seeing the same thing is never a sexual activity. "If A, then B" does not imply "If not A, then not B."

Is that a yes or a no? I think I'm done with this discussion.

[mrocktor]

Law based on the recognition of the need for etiquette as an objective part of man's nature.

The need for etiquette is not an objective part of man's nature. Man is not the "nice rational animal".

mrocktor

[softwareNerd]

I had not been following this thread too closely, but recently scanned through the last couple of pages. I wonder if someone could summarize the key point that is being debated (not just about the Bill Clinton episode, but about how the law ought to be).

In identifying the key point, I'd like to ignore (for now) two contexts: threats and non-adults.

Threat: If we assume that some visual presentation -- of a sex act, of a violent act, etc. -- can be legitimately construed as a threat, then the law may act in that area. The counter to this would be that such a visual presentation can never be a threat. That's not what I'm, personally, interested in right now.

Children: parents routinely control their children's access to material, and the law may need to respect this norm. Again, I'm personally, not interested in this aspect right now.

So, that leaves one with non-threatening visual displays to adults.

From what I've read, my understanding of CapitalismForever's position is as follows (and CF correct me, please, if I'm off base): the law should prohibit certain types of visual displays in contexts where only adults will see them and even though they are non-threatening, unless the viewers have been warned -- in some way.

Is that a correct statement of your position? (I realize that you might say that law may go further, but I'm trying to state a minimal position.)

[hunterrose]

There are some contexts in which [seeing breasts] is not a sexual situation and there are contexts in which it is.

Okay, but this is distinctly different from your stance on sexual invitations:

A purely verbal, non-graphic, non-binding invitation ... leaves the invitee free to avoid any visualization of sexual content.

[in receiving a sexual invitation,] she doesn't have to perceive or visualize any of the concretes that make up a sexual act. Her thought process can be limited to: "He wants to sleep with me. I don't want to sleep with strangers. So I'll say no." She can reach the "no" without ever thinking about what it's like to sleep with you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that receiving sexual invitations does not qualify as a sexual situation because it doesn't force one to think about personally performing sex. OTOH, you're saying that seeing breast can qualify as a sexual situation regardless of whether it forces one to think about personally performing sex.

Are there any contexts in which receiving a sexual invitation is a sexual situation, and are these contexts the same as for seeing breasts?

If no, why?

Edit for sN:

"the law should prohibit certain types of visual displays in contexts where only adults will see them and even though they are non-threatening, unless the viewers have been warned -- in some way."

If this is CF's position, I think the main counter-points are

1) why should the law prohibit this?

2) why would it be limited to visual displays?

Edited October 5, 2006 by hunterrose

[Capitalism Forever]

From what I've read, my understanding of CapitalismForever's position is as follows (and CF correct me, please, if I'm off base): the law should prohibit certain types of visual displays in contexts where only adults will see them and even though they are non-threatening, unless the viewers have been warned -- in some way.

Correct.

Okay, but this is distinctly different from your stance on sexual invitations:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that receiving sexual invitations does not qualify as a sexual situation because it doesn't force one to think about personally performing sex.

...because it doesn't force any perceptual concretes pertaining to sex into one's mind.

2) why would it be limited to visual displays?

It shouldn't necessarily be limited to visual displays; sN was stating a minimal position, i.e. the law could possibly say more than what sN stated.

[softwareNerd]

Correct.

Thanks.

My view is that the law should not require potential viewers to be warned about any type of visual display if such displays are in contexts where only adults will see them and if they are non-threatening.

To take an example, suppose I go to a restaurant and there's something to indicate that only adults are allowed. Let's assume that I have reason to think that kids are barred for some reason other than sexual displays. Say, for instance, something leads me to conclude (reasonably) that only adults are allowed because gambling is going on and there are no additional ID checks for alcohol. To my surprise, somewhere halfway through my meal, a strip show starts. I don't think I ought to have some special legal recourse against the owners. Or, to take another example: suppose I expect a show where dancers go so far as to take their tops off; but, it turns out that they strip completely. Or, perhaps I expect women strippers and it turns out to be a gay club with male strippers that I find disgusting.

I see no reason for the law to be involved in such cases, except under my more general ability to sue if I had a right to expect something from the restaurant owner and it was not delivered.

[hunterrose]

[Receiving sexual invitations does not qualify as a sexual situation] because it doesn't force any perceptual concretes pertaining to sex into one's mind.

By this, do you mean "doesn't force one to see sexual concretes"? or "doesn't force one to think about the sexual concretes one is seeing"?

The only reason IIRC that you've given that being "forced" to (by placing within your sight) see some things is a violation of rights, is that it forces one to think about the sights.

A person can be "forced" to perceive concretes, but one can't be forced to think.

There seems to be no reason (outside of children and threats) why being "forced" to see anything would be a violation of rights.

It shouldn't necessarily be limited to visual displays; sN was stating a minimal position, i.e. the law could possibly say more than what sN stated.

Okay, but unless there is a basis for saying that such a law would prohibit a violation of rights, why should even this minimal position be made law?

[Ifat Glassman]

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 exposure of sexual organs with a sexual situation, because it IS a sexual situation.

No, you are wrong here. Exposed sexual organs can have nothing to do with sex. And if you don't believe me, check this out. Not everyone share your idea that a naked body means the naked person is about to have sex with you right then and there, or is having even the slightest sexual interaction with you. I myself think it can be nice to have a naked walk on a windy day on the beach. And trust me, I will not be inviting anyone for sex by doing so. In fact I would consider it rude if they interpreted it as an invitation without asking me first.

Here is part of the quote of Ayn Rand that you gave:

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

The last emphasized part of the sentence is of tremendous significance.

"A right is a power or liberty to which one is justly entitled, or a thing to which one has a just claim" (courtesy of wikipedia).

The word "justly" in the definition ties "rights" to morality in an unbreakable connection.

You, Capitalism forever, are trying to claim it is your right to not be offended, while Ayn Rand says that this is "an issue of procedure, not of morality".

An example of such rule would be "Making noise between 2-4PM and between 0-7AM is forbidden" on a certain neighborhood. This rule is agreed upon by contract by everyone in, say, a building, wishing to get services from the building committy (Sure hope I translated it well from Hebrew, if not, ask). These people all have a similar hours of activity so they decide to live in a place that fits their lifestyle and allows them to sleep at noon. Some regions offer housing especially for elderly people and enforce certain regulations in that area that allows the residents to live peacefully. But this is all done by citizens, through contracts, not by a government. A law that a government enforces has to be derived from rights, which means from ethics.

Which means that even if all the religious people in Israel decide that seeing my naked arms and head-hair is breaking their sexual integrity (and in fact they think that), No government would make any law to force me to dress according to their dictations. Give me freedom, or give me Death of uptight religious Jews! Right on!

If they want to enforce those laws in their buildings, in their stores, they are welcome to do so (and they do that in fact), but heck if they would force me to dress like a penguin!

There, that's all I had to say.

[Capitalism Forever]

Below is an integrated statement of the main arguments I have made on this thread, giving the full line of reasoning that leads from the purpose of rights to my evaluation of Clinton's action towards Miss Jones as unrightful. If anyone has any new questions about or objections to this train of thought, I will be glad to answer, but otherwise this is my concluding post.

The purpose of rights is to allow people to pursue a rational life in a society. A pursuit of a rational life is open to anyone who lives alone; rights do not guarantee anyone any benefit that he could not obtain through his own efforts if he lived outside of any society.

What rights do protect is the achievability in society of the rational values that would be achievable by an individual living on his own or in a society without irrational people; in other words, rights protect the potential values of rational men from destruction by irrational men.

Rationality is a moral principle; in this sense, rights are based and dependent on morality. However, the purpose of rights is not to make people moral, as the only power that can make a person moral is his own free will. Thus, a rightful law will not

dictate

but

recognize

moral principles. The fact that the law permits a given action does not imply that the law's authors evaluate it as moral, nor should a rational person be interested in such evaluation.

A rightful law will further recognize any relevant facts of reality pertaining to the interactions among people, such as the conventional meanings of symbols (including the words of language) and the conventional presumptions that apply when no explicit agreement has been made on a particular matter. When the conventions in question change, the law has to recognize the new conventions. A rightful law is dependent on social conventions in this sense--and

only

in this sense.

Man's consciousness has three levels: sensations and percepts, which are automatic, and concepts, which are subject to his volitional control. This means that each man has only himself to blame if he doesn't like the way he conceptualizes, but the responsibility for his sensations and percepts may sometimes lie with other people. Nobody can be held responsible for another's sensations or perceptions of metaphysically given facts, but if a man's actions give rise to a fact and to another's sensation or perception of that fact, then that sensation or perception can rightly be attributed to that man.

Certain sensations and perceptions can, through biological processes, cause nausea, dizziness, dazzlement, or other conditions that impair one's ability to deal with reality. Since the ability to deal with reality is an inescapable value to rational men, they have a rightful interest not to be subjected to man-made sensations and perceptions that, by their objective nature, impair their ability to deal with reality. The law ought to protect men from such man-made sensations and perceptions. Miss Rand used the term "loathsome sights" to name a subcategory of the percepts in question, which I have qualified as "

objectively

loathsome sights" to make clear that it is not any kind of whim-based legislation she and I are advocating.

Sex is the highest expression of love, and thus a rational man or woman will only want to perform sexual activities with a person deserving of his love. He will not want to find himself in a sexual situation with a stranger; he will value his

sexual integrity.

For this reason, rational men have a rightful interest in not being put into sexual situations against their judgment. There are certain sensations and perceptions that constitute sexual situations; the law ought to protect men from being subjected to such sensations and perceptions without their consent.

Laws of this kind will not prevent anyone who

seeks

such sensations and perceptions, for either rational or irrational reasons, from finding them where they are willingly provided. Under the laws Miss Rand and I are advocating, it will be perfectly legal for a willing man to break a rotten egg under the nose of a willing victim, or for a willing seller to provide sexual material to a willing client. What Miss Rand and I want to make sure is simply that all parties involved are indeed willing.

A person who infringes on another's right as a result of an honest mistake is morally innocent and cannot rightfully be held criminally liable, but nonetheless he owes his victim appropriate restitution, which the law may rightfully enforce. In determining whether a mistake is innocent, the law should use the standard of the

reasonable person,

which means that a failure to use the basic laws of logic or an ignorance of facts that are standard knowledge cannot be used as excuses. Thus, no judge or jury should pay any credence to claims of "I didn't know that A was A" or "I didn't know that firing a gun could cause death."

The same standard should be used by the law when determining whether a given person could reasonably conclude that he had received another's consent to a particular action, and also when determining whether he should reasonably have known that his actions implied consent to a particular action by another.

A person may rightfully

presume

another's consent to a particular action in certain situations; this means that he goes ahead and performs the action even though it affects the rightful interests of a person who has not yet given his consent, on the premise that the affected person is

likely

to consent. Such presumption of consent is only rightful in situations where the effect on the affected person's rightful interests is fully reversible, and the presuming party owes the affected person full restitution if it eventually turns out he does not consent. The law should use the reasonable person standard in determining whether the presuming party had a right to conclude that the affected person would likely consent and that the effect on his interests was fully reversible.

As I explained on the Homosexuality thread (posts

#771

,

#774

, and

#779

), the presumption of consent is a necessary part of the development of a rational sexual relationship. The man

has to

presume the woman's consent to certain intimate actions; only an ultimate loser would ask for permission to kiss a woman. But this does not give a man a license to expose himself to complete strangers; the criteria of likely consent and full reversibility I described above apply to presumptions in sexual situations just like they apply to them in every other area of life. In other words, the man may only perform acts of intimacy that he can reasonably conclude the woman is likely to consent to, or if she doesn't, he can easily make her forget about by saying "Sorry." None of these criteria were fulfilled in the case of Clinton's action towards Miss Jones.

[mrocktor]

(...) percepts, which are automatic, and concepts, which are subject to his volitional control. This means that each man has only himself to blame if he doesn't like the way he conceptualizes, but the responsibility for his sensations and percepts may sometimes lie with other people.

Wrong. Sensations and percepts are not under volitional control, therefore they are no one's responsibility. They are metaphysically given.

Nobody can be held responsible for another's sensations or perceptions of metaphysically given facts, but if a man's actions give rise to a fact and to another's sensation or perception of that fact, then that sensation or perception can rightly be attributed to that man.

Wrong. Nobody can be held responsible for another's sensations or perseptions period. If a man's actions give rise to a fact, he is judged for that. Bill Clinton exposed his penis to a woman - that is a fact.

In judging this fact we must answer the question: were rights violated? Her life is intact, seeing a penis does not kill you. Her property is intact, seeing a penis does not expropriate you. Her freedom of action is intact, seeing a penis does not keep you from acting according to your choices. No, no rights were violated.

The law ought to protect men from such man-made sensations and perceptions.

Wrong. Man must be protected from having his freedom of action impaired. Specific sensations and perceptions are irrelevant - if freedom of action was removed (no matter how) objective rights have been violated.

Miss Rand used the term "loathsome sights" to name a subcategory of the percepts in question, which I have qualified as "objectively loathsome sights" to make clear that it is not any kind of whim-based legislation she and I are advocating.

Wrong. No sight, no matter how loathsome, has the ability to remove your freedom of action except through physiological incapacitation (bright lights, dizzying strobes etc.). You are grossly equivocating situations where freedom of action is affected (incapacitation) with cases where freedom of action is intact (offense).

Whether Ayn Rand commited the same error is immaterial.

Sex is the highest expression of love, and thus a rational man or woman will only want to perform sexual activities with a person deserving of his love. He will not want to find himself in a sexual situation with a stranger; he will value his sexual integrity.

Wrong. A man certainly has a right to choose his sexual activities - such a right is a freedom of action, therefore it applies to choice. If a man is free to act, sexually, however he chooses - he is free. His sexual integrity - in a proper definition of the term - is completely impervious to any perceptual input.

For this reason, rational men have a rightful interest in not being put into sexual situations against their judgment. There are certain sensations and perceptions that constitute sexual situations; the law ought to protect men from being subjected to such sensations and perceptions without their consent.

Wrong. From an improper definition of "sexual activity" (which removes the element "choice" from "activity") to the floating abstraction "sexual situation" which can mean whatever you want it to mean your argument departs completely from reason.

There are no sensations or perceptions that constitute sexual activities because activities are self-generated actions. They are chosen - by definition. The automatic is not an activity - by definition.

(...) Miss Rand and I are advocating (...)

Miss Rand advocated reason. She advocated proper definitions. She advocated the strict derivation of rights from man's nature. She advocated rights as freedoms of action.

Even if your final conclusion does match some of her writing on the subject, conflicted as it was, your position is an affront to Objectivism, in every meaningful way.

You have been challenged in your failure to sepparate the perceptual from the volitional (activity vs physiological reaction). You have been challenged on your ridiculous definitions ("something related to sex" indeed). You have been challenged on the idiocy that would stem from the application of your principle (socially determined ethics). You have evaded all the contradictions that numerous people have pointed out in your argument.

My participation in this thread has had the exclusive purpose of keeping your unsupported argument from being confused with the Objectivist stance on the issue - for the benefit of anyone seeking to learn about Objectivism and how it applies to life. I consider the effort completely successful as your essential errors have been identified and exposed.

mrocktor

Edited October 9, 2006 by mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

your position is an affront to Objectivism

My and Any Rand's position. To what you think Objectivism is.

[hunterrose]

CF, wouldn't everything you've said mean that you have a "right" to not see homosexual displays of affection?

[mrocktor]

My and Any Rand's position. To what you think Objectivism is.

Yours and what you think her position was. And what I know Objectivism is. You see, my knowlege of Objectivism is non-contradicted. Her writing and yours on sex has contradictions. Objectivity is truly fantastic. I'm right, you are wrong.

mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

And what I know Objectivism is.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The statement

A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen

is a philosophical statement made by Ayn Rand, and therefore it is a part of Objectivism.

[IAmMetaphysical]

"Looking and listening" is very different from "seeing and hearing" the first is volitional, the second is perceptual. This is the distinction you have missed the whole way through.

[hunterrose]

CF, your argument is a slippery slope if ever I saw one. This doesn't in and of itself invalidate what you're saying, but I think it would give you pause.

I think a feminist could use your exact argument to justify legal action against a guy for offering sex, or a straight person for being 'forced' to see (and thus think about?) "irrational" homosexual relations.

Why should seeing a breast be different from hearing a sexual solicitation? The original distinction you gave is that the former forces you to think about things that the latter doesn't, but then you say that it doesn't matter whether seeing a breast forces you to think about anything... thus removing the sole distinction.

Yet, without giving a justifiable distinction, you still say that the two should be treated differently...?

[mrocktor]

"Looking and listening" is very different from "seeing and hearing" the first is volitional, the second is perceptual. This is the distinction you have missed the whole way through.

Exactly.

On a side note, Objectivism is not dogma, "Ayn Rand said so" is no argument. Unless she gave the rational argument supporting any given opinion of hers - its not part of Objectivism.

mrocktor

Edited October 13, 2006 by mrocktor