thenelli01

I wish I didn't post this thread the way I did. Posts like these are making it nearly impossible to get to the essence of the issue.

Can we abstract away from Ayn Rand and Branden? That wasn't what this topic was about, which is my fault for the way I worded it. I was simply trying to use a concrete example to start a discussion. Namely: initiating force against someone who has wronged you, which has many implications that WhyNot has brought up such as the use of principles. We can still use this example, but try not to get too focused on Rand, please.

It is the Objectivist position that it is immoral to initiate physical force because of the negative impact it has on man qua man. Are you arguing that: A) This isn't the Objectivist position. (after all, Peikoff isn't Ayn Rand) B] It isn't absolute. C) It is not immoral to violate principles D. None of the above. (please pick one)

I don't see how any of that is relevant or applies to the current discussion (putting aside me asking you ), nor do I see: as related to what you wrote above. Are you suggesting that someone insulting your wife or Ayn Rand being lied to are "extreme situations"?

A disassociation from them. I don't understand why people try so hard to justify the actions of Ayn Rand when she was clearly wrong.

Can you explain this distinction further? It's not immoral to initiate force against someone?

This wasn't about criticizing Ayn Rand. I was more interested in the idea of hitting someone for doing wrong to you.

Two "wasted" people having sex is similar to two 12 year-olds having sex. A 12 year-old (wasted person) having sex with a 30 year-old (sober person) is (can be) rape, but, having sex with another 12 year-old is not rape.

It might imply consent to the risk, but it doesn't imply consent to responsibility for others' actions. Driving a car implies consent to the risk of getting in an accident, but it doesn't imply responsibility for someone hitting your car. Even walking down the street implies consent to the risk of getting mugged, but it doesn't imply responsibility for the mugging. Same thing for a baby. Having sex implies consent to the risk of a girl getting pregnant, but it doesn't imply responsibility if the woman decides to birth it. This doesn't mean that every time a drunk person has sex, it's rape. It is contextual whether or not it is rape.

I dislike the phrase "coming out of the closet", as it implies that he has some obligation to tell the world. More specifically, it implies that gays, by default, are trapped in a closet, hiding their sexuality. Hiding it from whom? Society, of course. And society demands that information as if they have some kind of right to it. If you are gay or whatever, great. Embrace it and enjoy life, but why does he have to announce it and tell the whole world (including random strangers, acquaintances, etc.)? The only reasons I could think of why gays might want to "come out" is: 1) to meet other gays or people on the "DL" (because I recognize how hard it is for gays to find quality relationships, which is largely accountable for their promiscuity). 2) to normalize the idea of people being gay in culture and help other gays that are struggling (be a role model, show that gays aren't all like how they are generalized, help end gay bashing, etc.). 3) to feel completely yourself, like you aren't "hiding" anything (because most times you are assumed to be straight unless you are blatantly feminine). But, I oppose this whole notion that anyone has a right to the information or that it is so significant that an announcement needs to be made. Society clearly isn't at the point (yet) where this is completely understood, which is why I hold #2 as the best reason to make an announcement. A few more NBA players or NFL stars coming out might transform "coming out" announcements into more of a nuisance than a news story. I am looking forward to that day.

Similarly, I'll use the example of someone claiming to have cancer to get someone to come over the house (who normally wouldn't have) and spend time with her. I would call this kidnapping and imprisonment by fraud because it is using (indirect) force through a material lie to transport someone and keep them there without their consent. Disclaimer: I really wouldn't call this kidnapping in the legal sense, but I am bringing this up so someone can point out the flaw and the reason why this shouldn't be criminally prosecuted.

I am mostly in agreement with your post #29. But, I don't agree with this. Lies of material fact (i.e. facts that the victim acted on) in order to gain sex is fraud. It is essentially rape. The person did not and could not give their consent if the lie was material. Take this example: a woman is adamantly opposed to getting involved with married men. She met a married man, and he assured her that he was single and not married. If she had known that he was married, she would not have slept with him. Similarly, a wife is a monogamist, and would not be involved with someone who cheats on her. Yet, her husband is secretly having an affair on the side, while assuring her that he wasn't cheating on her. If she had known that he was cheating, he wouldn't have continued to stay with him nor have sex with him. This is opposed to a lie that is immaterial. For example, a man met a woman and asked her how old she was. She claimed she was 25, but was really 27. This lie was probably irrelevant to his decision to sleep with her. How could one give consent if such consent is based on a lie?

Does a victim necessarily have to prove harm was done to their life in Criminal Law? Isn't that implicit in the concept itself (i.e. fraud is harmful by its nature in the context of human interactions)? For example, if someone pushes you, I don't understand how you could prove that your life was "harmed" in any significant way. You had no bruises, no marks, no damage. But, if a cop sees it, or if you report it, he can be charged with assault. I'm wondering what the threshold is in fraud. Why do some cases of fraud get prosecuted (usually involving monetary exchange) and others, such as lying about your marital status to get sex, are not prosecuted as fraud? In the cases I've listed above, for example, it is fraud to lie about a material fact to get someone's affection or time. That is fraud, plain and simple, by every definition of the word, by my understanding at least. Am I context dropping? Do I not understand "fraud"? Why isn't this prosecutable in Criminal Law?

First, can you explain why? Second, sex and love are not objective material values?

Yes, I was going to do this. Thank you for reminding me. I'm referring to lying in personal matters, as opposed to monetary (dollars). For example: Married man lies to woman (says he is single) to get her to sleep with him. or A cheater lying to his girlfriend about cheating on her to get her to stay with him. or Lying about having cancer to get people, who normally wouldn't have, to spend time and hang out with you (no dollars were exchanged). or Lying about being raped to get sympathy. or Simply lying to get someone else's approval, who normally wouldn't have given it without the lie. All are cases of fraud, but should the government step in?

Fraud is defined as obtaining a value by deception regarding a material fact. Lying is intentionally telling a false statement (or statement you believe to be false). Under an Objectivist legal system, what is the distinction between the two? By this, I mean, when lying results in man taking an action he wouldn't have without the lie, then when does this become actionable in Criminal Law? What is the threshold?

Hello, I am looking for a book (not too long) that capsulizes Romantic Love. I would like a book that was written for the 1900-1960's setting in somewhere like New York. Doesn't have to be in NY or that time period, but I would like to avoid any rural setting if possible . Thank you.

I like people generally who have a love of something that I don't know much about. Particularly art, I am fascinated with art and admire greatly people who have a passion for it and have a certain unique creativity.

Precisely what I was looking for. Thank you. All the rest were great suggestions that I am going to put on my reading list. I have a few books that were listed, just so hard to find time to read them all.

Not perfect of course, but still a great day in the fight for freedom. I suspect the trend will continue around the country based on polling.

I agree with you that defining terms is crucial. I think of open-mindedness as the willingness to listen to new and different ideas and then to proceed to examine its relationship to reality objectively. As opposed to close-mindedness as being unwilling to listen to new ideas or even consider them. The way your friend probably meant to use the word is to mean non-judgmental, or to withhold judgment. That is the way most people use the term. It is fair to say: I am open-minded, I listened to the argument and concluded it to be wrong based on the facts of reality. I'm not interested in listening to ideas I have concluded to be wrong. As an aside: For the same reasons, I avoid going to lunch with my aunts when my dad invites me because I don't want to hear them talk about religion. I forecast that they probably will talk about religion because they did the last two times I had attended. I have concluded their ideas to be false and I don't want to spend time listening to them. It isn't enjoyable, but that doesn't make me close-minded. I think Ayn Rand touched upon this topic with the concept of "active-mind". Here is a topic covering the distinction with concrete examples, might be interesting to read: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/?showtopic=26834

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/brandens.html Is this moral?

How do you know that they are going to spew propaganda? This implies that you can make a (probable) forecast based on past data. To be open-minded doesn't mean to subject yourself to something that you concluded to be wrong and undesirable to listen to/debate.

Full article: http://gladstoneinstitutes.org/node/11439

Very interesting! Merry Christmas all.