theestevearnold

Among other things, AR said [extremely paraphrasing]: Faith causes epistemological problems because it introduces the arbitrary into the realm of ideas. Don't debate arbitrary assertions. Treat the logical fallicy as if nothing was said because, in effect, nothing was. The arbitrary (an assertion not deduced from reality), creates a breach with reality. "God exists" is an arbitrary assertion, not deduced from nature, but attributed to something of a super nature, that can't be disproven because it isn't encumbered by those pesky rules that govern reality. The effects on the mind, caused by such a breach with reality, can get worse. Similar to how the breach caused by lying can ripple out of control. I debate the arbitrary assertion of "God exists" only as an excersize in logic.

No the punishment must fit the crime. In the same way that a judge doesn't give a man the electric chair for stealing a loaf of bread, a moral woman doesn't shoot her lover in the cheek for obtaining sex via deceipt. Most people are immoral in the rational sense, and that's why the justice system needs to be fixed: to avoid leaving citizens no alternatives other than, no recourse, or vigilante justice. If there are protections in place, vigilante justice is wrong. There were no protections in place for the victim, Miss Rand.

No. In your scenario, I would not qualify the value-obtained-by-deceipt worthy of prosecution or litigation, and my retaliation should only consist of some type of verbal admonition. There has to be a minimum threshold, and specific criteria for each particular level of "fraud" on up, based on objective, concrete standards. That's why the details: wording of statutes, classifications (civil, petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor, felony class A, B, or C/1st, 2nd or 3rd degree), filing suit or criminal charges, indictment procedures, rules of evidence, sentencing guidelines, restitution?, etc., is a job for criminal law experts. The philosopher's job is to supply the principles. I recognize that AR pointed out the evils of the draft, and anti-trust laws, and taxation, and more, and she could've also wrote an essay on the need for non-monetary "fraud" laws. But her having a personal stake in it might be the reason she didn't. Especially with the news of the distasteful events that could've surfaced, regarding her motivation. Your scenario is a valid analogy, but it shows that non-monetary "fraud" still requires context (a minimum threshold), and that doesn't imply victims under the threshold of legal recourse have the right to slap their victimizer, because anything below the threshold shouldn't be an instance where a slap is appropriate. Accepting my sex-fraud premise for argument's sake, and my premise that if the state doesn't properly protect it's citizens, the citizens have the right to protect themselves, and my premise that checking evil--slap!--can be a protection against future evil and a direct avenue of recourse (for unprotected citizen's), then the moral breach was not with AR, it was with Branden, and then compounded by a justice system that doesn't offer women protection against men who obtain sex, that would've been denied otherwise, by deception.

Fraud is force. (An indirect use-of-force.) I recognize the broken legal system only applies it to monetary loss, so you're right that, for lack of a better term, I'm misapplying the word. But the principle is: Obtaining or keeping a value by deception. Sex with a woman is a value that can be obtained or kept by deception. Are powers delegated to the state to address this type of "fraud"? No. When the justice system doesn't provide protections, can one reserve the right to retaliate against an indirect use-of-force? Yes. The problem is with the justice systems inadequacies in the various types of non-monetary fraud, because it invites vigilante justice as the only avenue of recourse. (and that invites anarchy.) I say fix the system but until then, a woman has the right to take the matter into her own hand.

I recognize that you are merely accepting my premise, that Branden was the initiator, for the sake of argument. I assert the justification being a broken system or, more specifically, a system never built properly. AR wouldn't have advocated for a specific statute against "fraud to obtain sex" because she was a philosopher who proved the principles to base such laws upon. She left the lawmaking, implementation, and enforcement up to experts in criminal law, who have accepted a rational ethics and understand governments role. The principle is: no man shall obtain a value by force. The concept of fraud is obtaining a value by lying, which is indirect force. The justification for retaliation is that no value is gained by the retaliation of the victim. The moral imperative is that if one does not retaliate, the virtue of justice is not applied, and it's result is that evil, unchecked, gains a stronger foothold in the world. Monetary fraud is much easier for the men in the field of criminal law to address. slapping a man who conned me out of ten grand would be a move towards anarchy. The right thing to do would be to use the court system's delegated use of force. And while you only accepted my premise, for the sake of argument, that Branden commited a non-monetary type of fraud for which there is no legal recourse: if my premise is correct, the slap was not only justified, but required by AR's moral imperative. I recognize the necessity for the rule of law. I recognize the necessity to "fix the system," ie make laws against non-monetary types of fraud, so a woman has a better avenue of recourse other than a slap. I wouldn't go so far as to make my Branden fraud premise a sex-offense, because I've seen what happens to sex-offenders in prison: it's brutal. P.S. I'm not a sex-offender. (Guns and drugs and assaults and carjackings were my thing. 10 felonies.) I'm not that guy anymore. AR's philosophy saved my soul.

I don't blame you for feeling like beating me up. I would expect it. I come from a similar backround of violence (over 15 years in prison). In 2009 AR showed me that acting on my emotions, without validated them via logic, is wrong. I think you concur. You aknowledged that there are times when an individual retaliating with force is appropriate. We just disagree as to whether the Branden incident is one of those times. If there was a US statute that protects a woman against a man who lied to gain her special value, I would agree that AR commited a moral breach by engaging in vigilante justice, instead of relying on the powers delegated to the state. I'm not trying to be a wiseass when I say that Athos was always my favorite musketeer. (I've read and reread everything by Dumas--and Camille, by his son--at least five times. Prison is a great way to get a lot of reading done.) I'm not implying I'm a good fighter. I have a losing record. You'd probably kick my ass. Peace, Man.

Implying that I violate Objectivist principles is a much more hurtful blow than someone calling me a pussy. We're even.

I reserve the right to defend myself.

Until my nation's broken system is fixed, meaning laws are put in place that afford legal recourse to woman who's been sexually violated due to a man's fraudulent claims, It's a moral imperative that the woman slap a man who lied to get nookie. The system is broken. The virtue is justice.

Well said (in clarifying JASKN's intent....

Again, I'm sorry for calling you a pussy; I was half-joking and I shouldn't have said it. I will try to improve my manners. AR was speaking in the context of government's proper role when she made the statement you quoted. In certain contexts, it's okay for an individual to retaliate. AR said, "A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man." I delegate the use of force to government but, with no cops around & time is of the essence, or instances where laws don't exist (like nookie fraud), it's not only my right to use force against the initiator, it's a moral imperative. I say, "Nathaniel sought to gain a value, nookie, by lying to his victim; the victim did not gain a value by slapping him."

Sex is a value that can be obtained by fraud, which is an initiation of an indirect use of force. A slap is a completely moral act of retaliation. Not an initiation.

I allege Branden initiated force. Fraud is force.

Check your premises. Lying is a type of indirect use of force when done to gain or keep a value. Branden might've lied to get nookie. Use of force in retaliation is a moral act. Miss Rand might've slapped him as retaliation. When money is obtained by fraud the courts are delegated to retaliate with force. When nookie is obtained by fraud, IT WOULD BE IMMORAL TO NOT SLAP THE DUDE.

And there's a tiny love story in a stairwell. I won't say another word.

Smokin' Aces had another lesser moral issue in it too...regarding snitching on someone who never wronged you...the storyequated it with dog loyalty (which isn't a correct portayal of the immorality of betrayal, but it's great that a romantic-realist film included morality issues). Mixing up bad guys as good guys is common in contemporary screenplays, but the moral dilemmas make Smokin' Aces better than the plain old good verses evil themes. It's similar to Tarantino's work, in violence and plot drive, & all-star casting. But surpasses him due to the moral issues involved.

Correction: Smokin' Aces does have an attempt at a deep moral issue (@ the very end)!!!!!! The choice of throwin out one's virtue of justice to serve the greater good....or not....

Devil's Ad, You're misinterpreting. He wan't aknowledging two types of faith. He was showing how a trust in knowledge deduced from reality is sometimes erroneous referred to as faith, & is is not to be convoluted with believing the arbitrary. Convoluting the two examples is what mystics do to parade logical fallicies as valid concepts.

Romanticism is plot-driven. Everything that occurs has relevancy in later events. That's why Smokin' Aces is a great display of the use of plot. There's no grand theme or deep moral issues, but it's worth watchin. You'll dig it (unless you're a commie sympathiser).

I see no moral breach when a woman slaps a lover for lying to her, assuming she might not have given him the superdupervalue were it not for the lie. The only potential wrong here is: did Miss Rand deceive her husband about the affair. REASONABLE DOUBT: Maybe she had an "open marriage" of some sort.

Sorry. I shouldn't have said that pussy thing because it smells like an argument from intimidation. & anybody who disagrees with me is a commie sympathizer.

The slap might've been initiation, & therefore a moment of moral imperfection. I know she was a passionate woman because I've read her sex scenes, & maybe she didn't check her emotions before acting. But....maybe it was retaliation. I have been lied to before. It can be a form of indirect use of force. And in some instances, calling the cops or filing a civil suit is inappropriate. REASONABLE DOUBT: Branden might've promised her that he would be monogamous, to gain a value from her that he wouldn't have received otherwise (nookie). Miss Rand might've given Branden some nookie, based on the lie. This type of fraud reminds of that great forum about lies on this site, & how certain types of fraud victims aren't protected by criminal or civil law, yet are still victims of an indirect use-of-force. Maybe Miss Rand was retaliating for getting defrauded out of nookie. I don't wanna make it a non-issue, but dude, if you think a slap from a chick, in that context, qualifies as initiation of force, you're a pussy.

This superset stuff reminds me of Bertrand Russell, the discredited mathematician who was considered a genius for his set theory. It was nonsense, but the damage it did to math is still reverberating in the colleges.

Dearest Devil's Ad, I'm glad you noted that AR said it's a logical fallicy to prove a negative. I can say, "A giant invisible peeping tom exists and He likes me to ask for favors via telepathy. And nobody has ever proven He doesn't exist." I can't be proven wrong, because it's irreducible (untied) to reality. I have given an air of validity to the arbitrary, by the fact it can't be disproven, thereby smuggling it into the realm of concepts. Dearest SLab, Your "I cannot prove not P" is therefore not a way to validate the arbitrary assertion that a supreme consciousness exists. New concepts should be deduced from Man's knowledge of reality, which makes them reducible to the axioms. The arbitrary isn't. So faith is required. Faith is irreconcilable and incompatible with Objectivism.

Dearest SLab, thanks to you and Devil's Ad, for "coming out" on this forum. You both made a superb effort to defend faith. God is a specific concept. Men throughout history have been able to smuggle in to the realm of ideas, invalid (arbitrary) concepts, by use of the stolen-concept. This includes defining it by non-essentials or redefining it without explicitly dropping the essentials. You said you believe in God, but you had to redefine it. That's not fair to your concept or to people who take definitions seriously. Pick a new name for It. AR wanted to call her philosophy Existentialism, but it was taken.