Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

[mrocktor]

He doesn't really mean offended. He's saying that an image may force a line of thought on a person that they may not want to think about and equating that to initiation of force.

The "right not to think about that which one finds offensive" is pretty close to the "right not to be offended". Maybe "the right not to think" or "the right not to perceive" describes better what he is defending. The point is, he has to define whichever right he is supposed to be claiming and ground that in reality.

mrock

[Myself]

To anyone participating in this thread:

Sometime within the next 24 hours I will be shipping my computer out for repairs. During that time my posting capacity will go down (perhaps to zero). The repairs run from 3 to 5 business days so hopefully I'll have it back no later than the 9th. Please bear with any delayed responses. Thank you.

[Capitalism Forever]

Ok - so then the next step is to determine what the difference is between a regular image and a sexual image.

What I called a sexual image is one that inevitably makes you think of sex--the ones with the exposed sexual organs, etc.

They are not equivalent. Fraud can be considered an intiation of force only if a person acts in response to the misinformation. If I marketed a cleaning fluid as a beverage and you bought it and were poisoned, it would be a violation of your rights because you had made the transaction under false pretenses and resulted in bodily harm. A sexual image, however, unless marketed as a children's video or anything other than it is, would not be equivalent to fraud because no misinformation was given.

I was not saying it was equivalent to fraud; I was just saying that if the intended meaning of "physical force" was broad enough to include fraud, then it is not such a stretch to say that it could also be broad enough to include the showing of an image.

I see. So you're saying that by viewing the images of sex, your mind integrates those images and causes [...]

Correct so far.

[...] the concept of "sex" to come to mind.

No, it causes you to experience the emotional and other psychological reactions to a sexual situation. It "puts your mind in sexual mode," so to speak. This is why it's a sexual activity.

Remember - even as you defined it, a "sexual activity" has to be deliberate (ie. with the intention of that result).

Did I? My list of examples included some deliberate activities, and some that were not deliberate ("unexpected seeing of...").

The smell of rotten eggs on the other hand, can be controlled and delimited by the mind - I've done so many times actually.

Come to think of it, I didn't throw up either when I smelled a rotten egg; I just almost threw up. I began to, but then I told myself I didn't want to, breathed some fresh air, and stayed away from the source of the smell for a while. So you're right that it can be controlled and delimited, with will and with the necessary "raw materials." But it takes effort to do so, and a person with a lower "vomit threshold" (or one to whom the fresh air was not available, or one exposed to a stronger smell) may not have succeeded.

To make the case as compellingly as possible, imagine you're aboard an airplane and somebody deliberately breaks open a rotten egg in the cockpit. Is this perfectly fine with you, since the pilots will be able to control and delimit the effects of the smell and the flight won't be affected at all?

[Capitalism Forever]

No one is responsible for what you expect or fail to expect.

Oh really? When you see a green traffic light, you expect the traffic on the intersecting street to stop. Can I just drive into you and argue in court that I wasn't responsible for what you expected?

he has yet to properly define which right he is claiming to be defending. I stand by my previous statement - when you boil it down he is defending a right not to be offended.

mrocktor, I think you believe that the Earth is flat. And I'll stand by this statement no matter how many times and how explicitly you deny that you believe so. As a matter of fact, I'll keep calling you a flat-earther ever after you express your wish to see me stuffed into a cannon and fired into orbit.

What kind of a person would you think I was if I did the above? Would you take what I say seriously? Would you believe a logical discussion was possible with me?

[mrocktor]

Oh really? When you see a green traffic light, you expect the traffic on the intersecting street to stop. Can I just drive into you and argue in court that I wasn't responsible for what you expected?

Traffic rules are convention. You don't have a right to cross a green light and not be hit. You have a right to your life and property. Should someone damage your life or property by not following the traffic rules (which should be contractual, by the way) they are liable for violating your rights. The traffic rules are merely context.

Now, fast forward to the actual topic. A girl goes to a guy's house for lunch. On the living room wall is a 6' tall poster of Carmen Electra, completely naked. Now, the girl didn't expect that. Its against convention. But here is the kicker: no rights have been violated.

What kind of a person would you think I was if I did the above? Would you take what I say seriously? Would you believe a logical discussion was possible with me?

An implied ad-hominem is still an ad-hominem. And it does not identify an aspect of reality, besides. I maintain my position based on fact: you have given no evidence otherwise.

The challenge stands: What right are you claiming to defend? How is it derived from man's nature? One sentence will suffice for the first, a paragraph for the second. Don't call me an idiot - prove me wrong.

mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

An implied ad-hominem is still an ad-hominem.

If you don't like implication as a manner of communication, that's easy to fix. As a result of your brazen misrepresentation of my position and your obstinate repetition of such misrepresentation in spite of a long series of protestations and clarifications on my part, I have come to the conclusion that your posts cannot be taken seriously and that it is futile to attempt to have a logical discussion with you.

You have also earned the dubious honor of being the first poster I ever put on my Ignore List. Since this is the first time I use this feature, I don't know how it works, but I suppose your posts and private messages will not appear for me--so you're literally out of this debate as far as I'm concerned.

If any of the other posters are interested in my answer to a question posed by mrocktor, just ask it politely and I'll be glad to answer.

[Lathanar]

It "puts your mind in sexual mode," so to speak. This is why it's a sexual activity.

Are you claiming this is the case for everyone? Or just for you.

[Capitalism Forever]

Are you claiming this is the case for everyone? Or just for you.

For everyone, except those who have been sufficiently desensitized.

It's like free will: you know about it from introspection, you know by induction that it normally applies to everyone, and you know by observation of others (hopefully not yourself!) that it is sometimes possible to lose it, e.g. through overconsumption of alcohol.

[Lathanar]

For everyone, except those who have been sufficiently desensitized.

Prove it. It's not for me and I do not consider myself to be 'desensitized'. If I want to think about or fantasize about sex when I look at an erotic picture I will, but I can also choose not to. It is my choice, my mind does not automagically put me in sex mode. You make it sound like viewing pornography = a sexual activity is some sort of instinctual behavior all humans have built into them.

[mrocktor]

If you don't like implication as a manner of communication, that's easy to fix. As a result of your brazen misrepresentation of my position and your obstinate repetition of such misrepresentation in spite of a long series of protestations and clarifications on my part, I have come to the conclusion that your posts cannot be taken seriously and that it is futile to attempt to have a logical discussion with you.

At least he was honest about it. Each reader can now evaluate for himslef whether in fact my statements misrepresent CF's position or whether they merely whittle away the dead wood and get at the core of the issue.

You will notice that whether my interpretation is correct or not, this remains unanswered:

The challenge stands: What right are you claiming to defend? How is it derived from man's nature?

You can read all of CF's posts and you will not find the answer to those questions.

It is my personal opinion (and I'd like to explicitly separate this from the philosophical analysis of the issue) that many Objectivists seek rational validation of their sexual prudishness and contrive various arguments to support that idea. Myself, I have never seen a convincing argument in support of such a position.

I also have yet to see a convincing argumentation in support of the "sex is a celebration of values" proposition and all that is derived from it (and I have read The VOS, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, ITOE and OPAR). I consider myself an Objectivist because I see this as an application and not core to the philosophy.

I also find it wildly amusing that in a debate whether there is a right to be protected from a part of reality you don't like, the proponent ends up doing this:

You have also earned the dubious honor of being the first poster I ever put on my Ignore List.

By his logic, he should sue me.

mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

If I want to think about or fantasize about sex when I look at an erotic picture I will, but I can also choose not to.

So can I. This is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that you have no choice about viewing the erotic picture sexual image as a sexual image. Your mind will see it as one, even if you would prefer to see something else. I am not talking about what you choose to do in the seconds and minutes after you have first seen the image, for surely you can choose to look away or close your eyes if you don't like seeing what you see. I am talking about the split second when you first see the image, before you have a chance to decide not to look at it.

You may wonder why I make such a fuss about a split second. Well, let me first note that I am not making the fuss; this thread would never have existed if it weren't for you guys arguing that Clinton's behavior was rightful. But the more important answer to give is that I am not a pragmatist. If taxation were reduced to one penny per person per year, I would still be opposed to that tax and I would still say it was a violation of my rights. I would still make a fuss argue if someone insisted it was fine.

[Lathanar]

So can I. This is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that you have no choice about viewing the erotic picture sexual image as a sexual image. Your mind will see it as one, even if you would prefer to see something else. I am not talking about what you choose to do in the seconds and minutes after you have first seen the image, for surely you can choose to look away or close your eyes if you don't like seeing what you see. I am talking about the split second when you first see the image, before you have a chance to decide not to look at it.

You may wonder why I make such a fuss about a split second. Well, let me first note that I am not making the fuss; this thread would never have existed if it weren't for you guys arguing that Clinton's behavior was rightful. But the more important answer to give is that I am not a pragmatist. If taxation were reduced to one penny per person per year, I would still be opposed to that tax and I would still say it was a violation of my rights. I would still make a fuss argue if someone insisted it was fine.

You did not answer my question. Prove that viewing pornography = sexual activity for everyone, not just your own psychology. There are a multitude of things that I can see/hear that might flash some sort of 'sex' thought, but I CHOOSE to equate them to a sexual reference if I want to. It is not an automatic thing, it is my consciousness deciding to. If there's an image of a place that maybe I had a rip roaring good time with some girl at, I'll think of sex for longer than a few moments. Should I consider my rights violated since the image which is innocent to others evoked a sexual thought in my head? No one is surplanting or negating my use of reason. There is no rights violation, no use of force to make me think of something I don't want to think of. All political/ideological speech is supposed to make you take a line of thought, make you think about something in a way you normally wouldn't, it's why it's there. There is no force or rights violations in persuasive speech for the same reasons there is no rights violations in pornography.

[Capitalism Forever]

Prove that viewing pornography = sexual activity for everyone, not just your own psychology.

But I am not saying that it is for everyone. As I said, you can be desensitized. For some people, even sex itself is not a sexual activity anymore.

But the original, normal state is that it is a sexual activity. And if you take "pornography" in the sense I use it:

pornography - A depiction of deliberate sexual activity including images of exposed sexual organs.

then you're really asking me to prove the obvious. How can viewing this be anything other than closely related to sex? How can a normal person view this and not think of sex?

The connection is less glaring in the other cases I mentioned (such as unexpectedly seeing an exposed sexual organ), but it is still all too apparent to require a proof, IMO. We're getting close to the situation we had on the Homosexuality thread, where I was asked to prove things like "the bodies of men are different from those of women." There is only one kind of answer I can give to those who pretend to need a proof for these sorts of things: If you don't know that this is the case, you're not the kind of person I'm hoping to convince anyway.

There are a multitude of things that I can see/hear that might flash some sort of 'sex' thought, but I CHOOSE to equate them to a sexual reference if I want to. It is not an automatic thing, it is my consciousness deciding to.

I never denied this, and I never relied on it being otherwise. The existence of volitionally conditioned reactions does not negate the existence of automatic reactions.

If there's an image of a place that maybe I had a rip roaring good time with some girl at, I'll think of sex for longer than a few moments. Should I consider my rights violated since the image which is innocent to others evoked a sexual thought in my head?

Violated, by whom? It is you whose action caused you to associate that image with sex. If you didn't want to think of sex, the person to hold responsible for the inconvenience is you. But since you thought of sex for more than a few moments, it would appear to me that you wanted to think of sex anyway, making your hypothetical protestation entirely moot.

Contrast this with the situation Miss Flowers was put in. Whose action was it that caused her to think of sex? Clinton's action. She didn't choose to associate what he showed her with sex; the thing he showed her, and in the manner he showed it, is by its nature associated with sex.

Yelling "Your money or your life!" at a stranger is a violation of his right to his property. But if you invent a language in which "How do you do" means "Your money or your life," that doesn't make a stranger's greeting to you a violation of your rights. In the latter case, the association is entirely your doing; in the former, it is natural.

All political/ideological speech is supposed to make you take a line of thought, make you think about something in a way you normally wouldn't

But it can't force you to think that way. Which is the distinction I've been trying to make all along!

[Lathanar]

But I am not saying that it is for everyone. As I said, you can be desensitized. For some people, even sex itself is not a sexual activity anymore.

But the original, normal state is that it is a sexual activity

....

Violated, by whom? It is you whose action caused you to associate that image with sex. If you didn't want to think of sex, the person to hold responsible for the inconvenience is you. But since you thought of sex for more than a few moments, it would appear to me that you wanted to think of sex anyway, making your hypothetical protestation entirely moot.

....

But it can't force you to think that way. Which is the distinction I've been trying to make all along!

This is exactly my point, it is my choice to associate something with sex, it is not forced on me whereas you've said that it is forced upon you. It is also my point that what I view as sexual activity and what you do is not the same as for other people, you've said that it is for all people, or at least in a normal state, and who determines what that normal state is btw? So which is it, is pornography or exposing yourself to someone else violating some right of yours by forcing you to think of something, or are you simply thinking of it because you make the choice to. What right is being violated?

[Lathanar]

Contrast this with the situation Miss Flowers was put in. Whose action was it that caused her to think of sex? Clinton's action. She didn't choose to associate what he showed her with sex; the thing he showed her, and in the manner he showed it, is by its nature associated with sex.

Who said she immediately thought of sex, she could very well have started thinking wtf, or did he just do that? I imagine a little bit of disbelief was involved first, then either disgust or outrage. She may have thought about what it would be like sleeping with him too, but that would be her choice. Maybe she compared him, maybe she laughed. It's her choice what thoughts go through her head. The real issue with Clinton is in the context of why he had her come to his hotel room.

[FeatherFall]

I don't think the following is important for the principles of this argument, but the lawsuit was not brought by Jennifer Flowers. Miss Flowers was just one of the many women with whom Clinton had an affair. The person I think people are referring to is Paula Corbin Jones.

In case there is any confusion later, Kathleen Willey is the fling who's husband killed himself, Juanita Broaddrick accused clinton of rape and Elizabeth Ward Gracen is the former Miss America 'bimbo eruption'.

-edit to fix font.

Edited September 6, 2006 by FeatherFall

[Capitalism Forever]

Who said she immediately thought of sex, she could very well have started thinking wtf, or did he just do that? I imagine a little bit of disbelief was involved first, then either disgust or outrage. She may have thought about what it would be like sleeping with him too, but that would be her choice. Maybe she compared him, maybe she laughed. It's her choice what thoughts go through her head. The real issue with Clinton is in the context of why he had her come to his hotel room.

You misunderstand my use of "think of sex." Before she could think any of the things you mention above, she had to:

1. Experience certain sensations. In this case, they were the visual sensations of the light rays reflected from the object on display.

2. Convert the sensations into a perception. This was done automatically by her mind and it entailed the recognition of the object on display as a sexual organ, and the resulting situation as a sexual situation. This was when the "'sexual situation' light" went on in her mind, and you'll notice that all this happened without her having a choice about it.

[Capitalism Forever]

I don't think the following is important for the principles of this argument, but the lawsuit was not brought by Jennifer Flowers. Miss Flowers was just one of the many women with whom Clinton had an affair. The person I think people are referring to is Paula Corbin Jones.

In case there is any confusion later, Kathleen Willey is the fling who's husband killed himself, Juanita Broaddrick accused clinton of rape and Elizabeth Ward Gracen is the former Miss America 'bimbo eruption'.

Thanks for the correction. I was wondering a bit at why we were discussing Gennifer Flowers and not Paula Jones, but then I thought she must have been another victim of Clinton's. I can't keep track of all of them...

[Lathanar]

You misunderstand my use of "think of sex." Before she could think any of the things you mention above, she had to:

1. Experience certain sensations. In this case, they were the visual sensations of the light rays reflected from the object on display.

2. Convert the sensations into a perception. This was done automatically by her mind and it entailed the recognition of the object on display as a sexual organ, and the resulting situation as a sexual situation. This was when the "'sexual situation' light" went on in her mind, and you'll notice that all this happened without her having a choice about it.

This is getting tiring. She recognizes it as a sexual organ. That is not sexual activity, it is the act of perceiving an existent. What train of thought she persued after she regonized it is her choice.

1) Prove that viewing pornography = sexual activity for all people, not just yourself. If you can't, stop trying to say that viewing something that might be related to sex automagically makes you engage in a sexual activity.

2) What rights have been violated.

[Capitalism Forever]

This is getting tiring.

Getting ? I've found this entire thread tiresome right from the start! But this is one penny I'm going to haggle over for as long as it takes.

She recognizes it as a sexual organ. That is not sexual activity, it is the act of perceiving an existent.

Why can't the perception of an existent be a sexual activity at the same time?

Prove that viewing pornography = sexual activity for all people, not just yourself.

Already answered.

What rights have been violated.

The right I have been talking about: the right to choose your sexual activities for yourself. Or, if you like, the right to sexual integrity.

[Lathanar]

Why can't the perception of an existent be a sexual activity at the same time?

This question is so far out there, I don't even know how to address it.

Here's a good example. It's Super Bowl halftime, watching the show, getting bored, get a drink, come back in when the song is finishing. Justin grabs her shirt, something flashes and the camera view changes really quick and a comercial comes on. It takes a couple minutes to sink in that we just saw her boob on tv, and we start checking google to see if anyone else saw the same thing or we were just nuts. We saw a boob, unexpectedly, and were thinking and discussing the ramifications of that boob for at least an hour. If you equate that to sexual activity, even for the split second that we percieved her flash, then I don't know what to tell you. That was NO sexual activity.

Already answered.

The only answer there is that to you it's a sexual activity for normal, non desensitized people. That is far from any kind of proof that it is a sexual activity for all people.

The right I have been talking about: the right to choose your sexual activities for yourself. Or, if you like, the right to sexual integrity.

I'm sorry, I missed where a right to sexual integrity actually exists. Your whole argument is based on somehow someone is forcing you to think against your will. I really don't even see how you can take this kind of track at all, you have to think to decide on how to act. Someone trying to force, by threat of harm, not persuade you to agree with something that goes against reality is wrong. Showing someone their penis is not forcing tanyone to deny reality in any way, everyone can think whatever the hell they want. If you have sexual hangups due to your culture or whatever, don't try to legislate them on to the rest of us.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Lathanar

[JASKN]

It just took me two days to read through this thread because I couldn't keep at it for more than five minutes at a time; I found it a very tedious way to go about arguing the subjects of sexuality, property rights, and widespread public convention.

CapitalismForever, I found you to be very rude to some of the people countering you with legitimate arguments against your position and/or what appeared to be your position. I say this because I think it is deserved, but also because the problem I have with your rudeness is the very same problem you have with the unexpected display of sexuality. Etiquette is entirely a social construct which has nothing at all to do with rights, and the unexpected viewing of what you personally believe to be a display of sexuality can not amount to more than a rude gesture when physical force is not involved.

Your other argument is that the open display of sexuality is somehow inherently harmful to humans. I challenge you to provide any sort of substantiative evidence supporting that claim. You have not provided any thus far.

Also,

It is my personal opinion (and I'd like to explicitly separate this from the philosophical analysis of the issue) that many Objectivists seek rational validation of their sexual prudishness and contrive various arguments to support that idea. Myself, I have never seen a convincing argument in support of such a position.

I also have yet to see a convincing argumentation in support of the "sex is a celebration of values" proposition and all that is derived from it (and I have read The VOS, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, ITOE and OPAR). I consider myself an Objectivist because I see this as an application and not core to the philosophy.

since mrocktor put it out there, I would like to state that I am of the same opinion.

[Capitalism Forever]

CapitalismForever, I found you to be very rude to some of the people countering you with legitimate arguments against your position and/or what appeared to be your position.

To borrow a trick from your camp, you'll need to prove first that it is rude for all people and not just for you.

When people deliberately and persistently misrepresent your position and resort to arguments based on subjectivism and skepticism, all you can do as a response is point out their fallacies, and chances are they're not going to find such response "polite." Since my response is bound to be perceived as unfriendly anyway, I prefer to choose the most effective way of expressing it, rather than worry about whom I might offend. I put the interests of the objective reader, who will appreciate a terse form of expression that doesn't waste his time, ahead of the sensitivities of the poster who has just insulted my intelligence.

If you read the part of my conversation with Myself starting around post #84, you'll see that a polite and respectful dialog IS possible with me, even after a start that wasn't so polite. But it takes two; it takes definitions and discussions about the meanings of words, references to OPAR, and things like that--and not putting words into my mouth (as mrocktor did) or going the "one man's A is another man's non-A" routine (as Lathanar is doing).

[JASKN]

To borrow a trick from your camp, you'll need to prove first that it is rude for all people and not just for you.

Ok, well I am not going to go the same route as the rest of the thread and run around in circles with you. And you still did not answer my/the question concerning sexuality.

As far as people misrepresenting your position, reading through the thread, my conclusion was that you were vague or were not explaining your position very well, and at times you appeared to avoid certain questions altogether. Like the one about sexuality in my post, for instance.

At any rate, I don't think much more is to be gained from you in this thread. You have explained yourself apparently as best you can, or as thoroughly as you care to, but it still makes no sense, to me.

[Capitalism Forever]

As far as people misrepresenting your position, reading through the thread, my conclusion was that you were vague or were not explaining your position very well

If a reader thinks so, he can always ask for clarifications or a better explanation. It is no excuse for accusing me of the equivalent of being a flat-earther and insisting on the accusation even after I made clear that my position had nothing to do with it.

Besides, you'll excuse me but I think I was the one with the most precise use of language throughout this thread.

and at times you appeared to avoid certain questions altogether. Like the one about sexuality in my post, for instance.

This?

Your other argument is that the open display of sexuality is somehow inherently harmful to humans. I challenge you to provide any sort of substantiative evidence supporting that claim.

Well, I challenge you to show me where I argue that the open display of sexuality is inherently harmful to humans! I didn't even use the word "sexuality" anywhere in this thread. What do you mean by it--sexual organs, sexual activities, sex, pornography, or something else?

And actually, I didn't use the word "harm" or "harmful" either.

My argument is that sex is a very important part of the life of a rational man, and that therefore he has a right to choose his sexual activities for himself; this means that others may not rightfully cause him to undergo sexual activities without his consent. No talk of harm there--just like there is no mention of harm in the validation of the right to property or any other right. If you think individual rights are based on the prevention of harm, you'll need to think again.

At any rate, I don't think much more is to be gained from you in this thread. You have explained yourself apparently as best you can, or as thoroughly as you care to

This is a correct observation, although if somebody reads my posts and has a question other than the ones already raised, I'll be glad to answer.