Ninth Doctor

Try Dramamine. I always keep the TARDIS well stocked. The little boy in The Emperor’s New Clothes referred to the facts of reality. You need to bone up on what the argument from authority is. http://www.don-linds...nts.html#expert Where? When? What? I’m ready to be convinced, are you? Jumping on the bandwagon? I made this damn bandwagon. Alright, I confess! The first post on the thread is loaded with NLP trickery. NLP being neuro-linguistic programming, it’s kind of like the Jedi mind trick from the Star Wars movies. But, like in the movies, it only works on the weak-minded, and now I’ve been caught! And I’d have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you meddling kids! And your little dog too! Wait, that’s Toto, not Scooby…aw hell. But look at how many people I tricked! Ha!! You’re not going to tell us when I demonstrated to you that my “judgment can’t be trusted”? Actually, I’m only concerned that people trust my facts, meaning, am I an honest reporter? Did I transcribe Peikoff correctly, or did I maybe insert ellipses improperly, do unacknowledged editing, or otherwise obscure/alter his meaning? I expect that readers can make up their own minds, do their own evaluating; in fact I insist that they do. I fear that the attitude you’re evincing here is what Ayn Rand called, I believe it was in her Apollo and Dionysus lecture, a “mentality that’s ready for a Führer”. And Peikoff is one very odd choice for Führer, hate to say it but he’s never been charismatic in the least. Then again, neither was Hitler. Physically, he was a toad, he had a shrill voice. How could such a man whip crowds into a frenzy? He must have possessed psychic powers. Perhaps, instructed by some Druid from his hometown, he knew how to establish contact with the subterranean currents. Perhaps he was a living valve, a biological menhir transmitting the currents to the faithful in the Nuremberg stadium. Foucault’s Pendulum , Chapter 99 No, it’s a way to mock the form of your arguments. They’re just so laughable, and the fact that you seem blind to it makes this all the funnier. And all the more disgusting. Given the option of puking or laughing, when possible I choose laughter. If you were standing in front of me talking such cultist drivel, good chance I’d puke on you. Involuntarily, of course. I think I’ll close by letting Richard Dawkins speak to the value and function of ridicule:

I see that you are well practiced with the argument from authority. Please remember that it’s a logical fallacy. Psychologizing is also a bad practice, for example you don’t know whether I think I’m smarter than Peikoff or not. Next, you say “shallow interpretations of a single concrete thing that he says”, this is not a concrete, it’s principles that we’re discussing. If he’d said he thought Kobe Bryant was innocent, and all we did was debate the not so clear facts of that case, then we’d be “concrete-bound”. Next, “because he’s too selfish for them to feel comfortable with”, what on earth are you talking about? You call me an Objectivist (albeit, a concrete-bound one), then you assume I have a problem with selfishness? Next, “people acting like he’s [Peikoff] a moron”, who’s said that? People think he’s wrong, very wrong, and since he’s not a moron he should know better. Finally, “respect for people who have been masters of this field”, oh I love this one, it’s my favorite. One word, a name, according to Peikoff the ultimate master of the whole field of philosophy for the last 230 years: Kant. Gonna pay some respects?

I believe you'll find Camille Paglia put forward a similar position. She used to talk about date rape, and had controversial things to say about it. PC types were up in arms. I might have to go looking for quotes.

You’re working from an expectation that Peikoff wouldn’t ever contradict Objectivism, but, without laboriously rehashing the controversies of just the last few years, let me just say that presumption ought to be thrown out the window. You can’t count on him to be consistent with Objectivist principles, either in word or deed.

The following sentences make it clear that Peikoff means, as you put it, "the man as he continues his sexual advance (rape)". "I'm thinking of that case of Kobe Bryant, where the woman came up sometime in the middle of the night, after some drinking, to his bedroom, and then when he purported to do something, she said, 'No, I don't consent.' You cannot do that. You have given every evidence that that is what you are going to do, and it's too late at that point to say, 'Sorry but no.'" FWIW I don't think he has a sound reading of the Kobe Bryant case. We can go into that, but I think it's better if we stick to the facts as he ascribes them to the case.

I feel like this horse ought to be dead by now. The quote, again: "A woman can give her consent by her presence, in certain contexts, and that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says." Does it need further explaining? In a sense I agree with Dwayne that Peikoff has been completely clear here. However, we have utterly opposing interpretations of it, so, never mind that!

Try reading from left to right; also, you need to start at the top of each page, then proceed downwards. I did sneak some kabbalistic double coding into the opening post, but you'll need to use the right gematria table to unlock it. Here's a hint: Fibonacci.

Easy, look for people who defend Peikoff no matter what he says. Fraudulent? Who cares if her behavior has been fraudulent? She could be the worst tease in history, rape is still rape. Now, I’m going to try giving Peikoff’s statement the most charitable reading I can manage. Earlier I said his moral guidance to women is “don’t go up to his room is you’re not up for sex”, and his moral guidance to men is “she’s here, now plug your ears and bone her”. If you can grant that his statement was only meant as advice to women, then it’s really not so bad, a woman ought to be aware that she could be raped if she puts herself in that position. If you have a daughter, it's a fact that you want her to be aware of. The trouble is the corollary, the necessary implication for how men are expected to behave. Take the way he puts it, “you cannot do that”, “and it’s too late at that point”, I find it inescapable that this is moral license for the male party to say: “you cannot do that”, and “it’s too late at this point”, meaning, for him to commit rape, and for the female to do what? She sure as hell isn’t allowed to change her mind, is she? Grin and bear it? Do we need Peikoff to come right out and say: “men, this means it’s a-ok to hold the lady down and jam it in there”? This is like expecting Obama to come right out and say “I’m here to enslave producers at the point of a gun” or for the crazed Islamophobes to say “bomb the madrassas, and be sure to do it while they’re occupied”. Such candor is rare indeed.

Are you going to clarify it for the rest of us? Since so many long time Rand fans are getting it wrong, maybe we're going to need you to help us.

While I'm not comfortable with Jonathan's phrase "there is something about the nature of sexual activity that apparently makes it unstoppable once it is initiated", I do think that contentious discourse is unstoppable. This genie's out of the bottle, sorry. And it'll be on other sites too, as Bogie would have said, that's the press, baby, and there's nothing you can do about it.

At the earliest his reply will take a week, you want to shut the conversation down until then? With no guarantee that he's going to address the question?

Is there a special OO award for stubbornness? How about obtuseness? I have a couple nominations to make.

Now, by "frees the man to have sex", do you suppose maybe he meant masturbation? Otherwise, who's he going to have sex with? The woman who just said "Sorry but no"??????

Yes it is egregious. And we’re merely taking the principle he’s enunciated and applying it. I brought up anal rape to illustrate the problem in a way a man ought to understand. Free to leave? Obviously not. If so, there wouldn’t be a problem. “t's too late at that point to say, ‘Sorry but no’”, therefore, what? Peikoff’s guidance for women: don’t go up to his room if you’re not up for sex. Peikoff’s guidance for men: she’s here, now plug your ears and bone her!

Sorry, I thought you were a troll.

I say non-consensual sex = physical harm. Does there need to be vaginal tearing, and does she need to leave blood stains on the guy’s shirt, as happened in the Kobe Bryant case? Hell no. I can twist your arm behind your back, causing you immediate pain, but without causing physical harm, in the sense that you won’t have an injury, and will be fine once I let go. Or do you think non-consensual sex doesn’t hurt? Tell you what, I have it on good authority that with sufficient lubrication in place, non-consensual anal sex doesn’t result in injury. Imagine a scenario where you find yourself bent over a chair, you’re saying no, but your rapist is a highly regarded Objectivist authority (and judo master), and he quotes chapter and verse at you from Peikoff podcasts as he gets busy. Maybe he threw some code words at you earlier; it’s a break during OCON, and you were drinking together at the bar, talking meta-ethics, and you unknowingly communicated “yes, I’m game for a buggering”, when you thought you were affirming the primacy of existence. Remember, once you’ve gone up to his room, whatever you say from that point on is too late, taking Peikoff literally. As to this moral vs. legal issue, there’s always going to be a he says she says aspect to rape allegations, and I don’t see how Peikoff is shedding any light on the matter. What I do see is him giving moral license to men to force themselves on women, and I think it’s horrifying.

http://www.peikoff.c...valent-of-rape/ Today LP is answering a question about having sex under false pretenses, then he quickly moves into one of his more amazing recent statements. Wowza. That slippery phrase “in certain contexts” seemingly provides a convenient out. And if the example he used was of a couple that likes to act out rape fantasies, and they’ve done it before, then I’d agree with him. So don’t forget to specify a “safe word”, you pervs! But for a first time sex encounter? I don’t know how to explain this without getting graphic, so let’s just say: what if the parts don’t fit together? Too bad honey! The ER’s down the road, don’t worry they’ll patch you up good, now shut up and stop all that screaming. The fact that he uses the Kobe case, and note the details he ascribes to it, I find this is shocking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylite Keep studying, for example read Atlas Shrugged, and you may soon find that the Objectivist moral ideal is exactly that of the Stylites, the early Christian pillar-saints. It’s an unusual interpretation, but work at it and you may get there. You indeed have to get as far away from others as possible, for as Sartre said, “hell is other people”. But, as for entertainment, it’s hard to eliminate that completely, even the most dedicated Sylite can’t help feeling amused by the reactions he gets when he pelts passersby with his feces. I fear that you will find Objectivism a hard philosophy to understand and live by, maybe you should try giving Nihilism a shot first.

Robert Bidinotto’s Hunter is selling lot hot cakes. http://www.hometowna...-vengeance.html http://www.amazon.co...28450961&sr=8-1 There's a free sample for Kindle. Good stuff.

Then why don't you address the reason he gave for why he votes the way he does? It's not the way I vote either, but I consider it to be a respectable, reasoned policy. I usually vote Libertarian, knowing full well that my candidate won't win. I don't think any major party candidate since Goldwater has been unambiguously worthy of support. Here's the relevant material:

Let me clarify: I don’t think “many or most” Objectivists or quasi-Objectivists follow marching orders from Peikoff. The OP seems to be under the impression, however, that Peikoff’s view does represent such a representative figure, even today, following what amounts to a reversal of position.

Depending on the speaker's context, the two terms are virtually interchangeable. It's not worth arguing over. The quote from Comrade Jeeves, who was in turn quoting Stalin, comes from the 1920's.

I suspect you get your "many or most" figure by inferring that Leonard Peikoff speaks ex cathedra for Objectivism. Here's his latest word on how thou shalt vote: http://www.peikoff.com/2010/05/17/given-the-obama-administration-and-your-stand-on-republicans-will-you-support-or-vote-for-a-republican-in-november/ In 2010 Harry Binswanger went so far as to say: vote for any Republican, even if his name is Joseph Stalin. So, you might look back at the old John Kerry attack ads, where they have him saying I was for this and that, before I was against it, make some mental substitutions, and draw your own conclusions. I suggest looking up the wording of Peikoff's 2006 voting "advice", in addition to listening to the podcast linked above, it shouldn't be too hard to find.

I say let’s ask Jeeves: There we go: “Socialism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.” Now how do you define Communism?

The early Christian communities were communistic, absolutely. Even better than the material you quote is the part, also in Acts, about the Christian couple who sell some possessions and don’t contribute all the proceeds to the community. They’re struck dead on the spot. I went to a Catholic High School (not by choice, I assure you) run by the Marist brothers, and in social studies classes they taught that communism is the moral ideal, and as proof they would say just look at us, your teachers. The brothers lived communistically. It was pretty ironic since most of the students were Cuban, thus the children of exiles from communism.