Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Trey Givens

Regulars
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trey Givens

  1. The whole universal health care schtick is obviously not new and it's not new to the United States, either. Schwartzenegger's plan is different in some of the specifics but in essence it is the same and I know no one here doubts that it will will bear out the same results. If you're interested in a rather dramatic example of socialized medicine being attempted here in the US, check out the story of TennCare, which bankrupted the state of Tennessee and very nearly caused a violent uprising in the citizenry. Here's a link to a first-hand account of the whole ordeal: Tennessee: A Lesson for California.
  2. As for ending the conversation, why lock it if folks are willing to participate in it?
  3. I think we now need a definition of "physical incompatibility." No, not CapFo's illustrations of men and women, but what it means to be physically incompatible. Because by all of my experience and understanding, there is no such physical incompatibility, as the expression is used here, in homosexual sexual relationships. I don't think there is any way to prove that a homosexual relationship between ideal homosexual men is not ideal. (The very notion begs the question even.) This: is little more than an assertion made on the grounds of CapFo's own heterosexuality.
  4. I don't recall how that is described and unfortunately I'm at the office, so I will have to research that when I get back to my library... unless you have a quote handy!
  5. Oh yes! I've seen that before. I believe Quent Cordair has some of his stuff. Check out Sam Axton's Excelsior and you see what I mean. He actually also has some beautiful sculptures of females, too. Update: No, this is where I saw wilkinson: Wilkinson But does this really help us? Because I know a beautiful woman when I see one and I appreciate that she is beautiful, but it's not the same.
  6. That's a bit personal, doncha think? And in basic terms that's what I just did.
  7. No, no. I took it into account. MY comment was to say that in the same way you were insulting me from the lofty perch of your good judgment, I was doing the same to you, only I held my tongue because trading insults isn't good use of my time. And you said you reserve the right to reissue your judgment on me and my response is to say that I reserve the same. That's all. That's why I was pleased by your statement, because of course you do. I'm really not sure how to answer this, though. It makes sense to me to be attracted to men. The male form is strength and vitality to me. I appreciate the directness and power of male beauty as opposed to the grace and litheness, which connotes nurturing and restfulness that I associate with female beauty. I don't think that brings us any closer, though, because I can see why either one is attractive. How would you respond to being asked why you're attracted to women?
  8. We are now on the same page with that. I was telling this forum many, many, many posts ago that we couldn't comment on THAT part of the issue. My mistake was that I accepted CapFo's argument which I see now needs greater exploration. I think that's reasonable, too.
  9. Hahahaaa... Same to you! That's all I've ever been talking about. The only reason YOUR gender would be important would be for our purposes of identifying you as a homosexual or heterosexual, not in your choosing/not-choosing thereof. Even the folks who are vehement about there being biological origins to homosexuality do hold that your gender is relevent to you in choosing a mate. In fact, that's counter to their own claim in the first place. Oh, but I wanted to comment on this: This varies, really. Don't you think? Aren't there different reasons one may be attracted to the female form? Also, there are all kinds of shapes and sizes of people and the "look" you may enjoy varies from that which others enjoy at least that much. I'm just not sure how to start addressing that question without talking about what is my personal preference, which I DO think is a result of my volitionally held values. Ideas?
  10. Oh, Daniel! This is no time for half-measures! heh heh heh... Actually, if you review my posts MUCH earlier in the conversation, I made it clear that I do not know what the origin of sexuality is but that scientific evidence available casts some doubts on this presumption that the gender of the object of your desire (just so we're clear) is not completely a matter of volition. (I also grant some skepticism to this evidence as well given how politically charged the subject of homosexuality is.) I think it was CapFo who argued the "Either sexuality is biological (and it's not) or homosexuality is immoral" dichotomy. He'll have to jump in here if I say it wrong, but I believe the argument was something like this: If all the characteristics of his lover including gender are a matter of man's volition, then implicit in the fact that men and women are biologically compatible, heterosexuality must be the result of properly held values. I'm not all that clear on how that argument really holds, but neither can I readily state the problem. But it looks to me like we're asking ourselves if that's really true or not. So, I'm interested in hear what is to be said on that.
  11. I wonder why it is that infants respond positively to images of symmetrical faces and negatively to asymmetrical faces without regard to culture, race, or experience. What are your thoughts, Richard_Halley?
  12. And Lucent, there is more to being male than having a penis. Most homosexuals *I* know are attracted to members of their gender on the physical level only for being members of their gender. I have met women who have the values I admire in a potential lover, but I'm not attracted to them because they are women.
  13. That's exactly what I've been saying, daniel. Thank you for also recognizing this aspect of reality. I don't see any basis for this statement. You actually compared sexual attraction to aesthetic values, which leads me to conclude that you have recognized the obvious: sexual attraction is the result of many layers of integrated values. I'm just saying that there are so many layers to it and so deeply rooted in a person's psyche that most people probably aren't able to trace every single value to its point of origin. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. No, that's not at all what I'm implying. I'm stating that gender is a relevant consideration when choosing a mate. When you identify yourself or anyone as X-sexual, you identify their gender and also the gender of their mate. I'm sure you know what homosexual and heterosexual mean, so I won't go into defining which groups choose which people of which gender. Hm. Ok. I'm interested in hearing about that. Are you seriously saying that what gender someone is bears no importance to you as to whether or not you would consider them for romance? D'OH! I see what you're saying and you've got me wrong. I'm not saying that YOUR gender matters in picking a love. I'm saying that the gender of the object of your affection matter to you.
  14. So, is there ever an announcement when someone is banned? I'm asking because of that huesdens person who was saying all the crazycrazy on lots of threads. I'm assuming someone unwelcomed him.
  15. Trey Givens

    Abortion

    Because that's a contractual agreement. Does that mean that you would say that sex leading to conception is an 18 year 9 month contractual agreement between mother and child where she lends her body, work, and money? Or are you just saying that if you birth the child THEN you're obliged to care for it? I'm assuming you mean the latter due to the later citations presented. I'm just looking for clarification of what we're accepting as true at this point. I'm not posing an argument here. This is why I'm not trying to get any babies right now. I'm impressed by all the issues associated with child-rearing and amazed that so many undertake it so casually.
  16. Trey Givens

    Abortion

    Thanks for looking that up, Richard_Halley! I now have a faint recollection of reading that. I'll have to revisit the topic.
  17. Assuming that the biology of sexuality is the way y'all are assuming it is, I don't think it's really possible for a person to spend their whole life gay and then suddenly have a revelation that they're straight. It requires that the values that set sexuality are so deeply engrained in an individual consciousness that it's extremely unlikely that anyone is completely aware of all the many, many integrations that went into forming it. So, I don't think it's close to religion at all. Then again, I don't think that human biology is the way that is being assumed here. And the accusation that this requires a denial of the notion of free will is an admission of an inability to distinguish between the gender of and the consciousness of the individual inspiring sexual attraction. It also requires ignoring those facts of reality which cast doubt on the negative to my claim. Do you think that if sexuality is the result of myriad levels of integrations that proper value judgments and integrations must necessarily result in heterosexuality? If so, I do not see how one may both deny a connection to biology and sexual orientation and turn around to claim that gender is of any importance in the matter. (Because if you say "yes" to the question above, we're back to asking "Why?" and inevitably you come back to CapFo's diagrams of males and females, which do not show all the necessary information to draw a conclusion. Aaaaannnd then we're back to debating freewill.) If not, wouldn't that mean gender has no importance at all and hetero-/homosexuality is just a coin toss depending on who you meet that embodies the requisite values? That's a rhetorical question really because gender is of very obvious importance in the selection of a lover.
  18. Trey Givens

    Abortion

    I'm sorry. I may be talking out of school here, but I need someone to find this reference: I was under the impression that there is not ANY possible situation in which the rights of one can require the abrogation of the rights of another for even a moment more than is practicable -- child or not. Aside: Does this mean Rand would have been against offering children for adoption? If we say that children have some claim on their upbringing, does that mean they have some claim on the quality of that upbringing? There are tons of problems with this claim, which is why I'm skeptical. So, please pardon my impudence here, but I'm really going to need a citation so that I might read its justification.
  19. It is, Poohat. But such a point is not welcome here. But here's a run down of the questions in this discussion: Either sexual orientation is a choice or it is not. If it is, then the question is one of morality, which is what we can and hope to address here. If it is not, then it is a question of biology which cannot be addressed in this forum. As a note on the question of biology, there isn't any conclusive evidence that indicates the origin of sexuality. The evidence that it available suggests that it is not entirely volitional but such evidence has been regarded in this forum with profound skepticism and rejected as politically motivated. I think that's somewhat understandable given how some people who claim to be scientists act. That leaves us with this question: *If* sexuality is a choice then is either homosexuality or heterosexuality moral or immoral? There are folks in this forum that claim that sexuality is completely a choice and that heterosexuality is always moral (Context-dropping much?) and that homosexuality is therefore always immoral. The basis of this argument is, as CapFo stated, males have penises and females have vaginas, which work very well together as illustrated by the production of children from copulation between males and females and validated by heterosexuals' profound enjoyment thereof. It should not be mistaken that CapFo is claiming that the philosophical purpose of sex is propagation at all. That is just an illustration of the biological fact that heterosexuality is the norm. Indeed, no one here has claimed that homosexuality is average or the norm but rather many (including myself) contend that it is only a statistically less probable outcome in biology. Again, we are trying to avoid discussing biology so detailed remarks about biology are verboten. You should also be aware that citing examples from zoology are herein rejected because the argument by some is that people are entirely volitional unlike other animals, so such evidence does not apply herein. As an aside: I suspect that examples of hermaphrodites would be rejected as outliers, although I don’t see how that’s reasonable given all the fuss about how appearing female indicates that you would be attracted to men. And another example: Pointing out that left-handedness and homosexuality occur at roughly the same rate in the population only leads us to conclude that someone should soon start a thread about the morality of left-handedness as soon as we’re done here. Remember: The question is *IF* sexuality is a choice then is either homosexuality or heterosexuality moral or immoral each? Someone else, I don’t recall who, pointed out that there is something of a false dichotomy running in this discussion stated as “Either sexual orientation is not a choice or it is immoral.” This comes as a result of CapFo’s stance that if it is a choice then homosexuality is immoral. That argument, which I and others still hold as completely irrelevant given the facts of reality, has yet to be sufficiently presented. That's why I've said a few times now that we've reached an impasse on this topic.
  20. I'm with you on this, RedHat. The only clarification that I would offer about it is that "possession" of ideas really just means that you're aware of them in your brain. Theft of ideas can only be claimed when a person actually uses those ideas without permission. In the case of music, it's not the being aware of the tune that makes it stealing, it's replaying the tune that makes it stealing. In the case of written intellectual property, stealing is the reprinting of it. For example: none of us are stealing from Ayn Rand right now even though we have TONS of her ideas in our heads. But if we were to go and copy Atlas Shrugged then, we'd be stealing. There is a horrible Argentinian writer name Jorge Luis Borges who wrote a short story about a man who tries to rewrite Don Quixote by trying to live just like Cervantes. He isn't successful on the whole, but does succeed at recreating portions of the book word-for-word on his own. (Borges writes that this version, even though it's word-for-word the same, it's better some how.) This is obviously an absurd idea. But the question it begs is if in such a situation would that constitute intellectual property theft? Yes, because we know that the character had actually read Don Quixote, so it's likely he was reciting it from memory. However, if the guy had not heard of Don Quixote, but wrote the same exact book, it can't be claimed that he stole something but that he came up with the same idea independently by the effort of his own mind. JK Rawling, author of the Harry Potter Books, and that guy who wrote The DaVinci Code find themselves making such a claim due to cases filed against them due to striking similarities in pre-existing works. All that just to say what I said up front: theft of ideas can only be claimed when a person actually uses those ideas without permission.
  21. Intellectual property theft involves the theft of ideas. It doesn't make sense to you because you're trying to treat ideas like they're concrete things that you could stuff into your pockets and obviously they aren't. But what does it mean to steal someone's idea? It means that you're applying those ideas (listen listening to their music, reading their book, building their superlaserbeams) without their permission. They thought of it, not you. But you're acting like you did. Remember the axiom of Consciousness. 'Consciousness is that of which one is conscious' and that includes ideas. So, if you become conscious of someone's ideas and then you apply them to your own action, which is how ideas are concretized - through action, without their permission you have committed intellectual property theft. If this separation between ideas and action is permitted to grow wider then the result is at best laziness (I thought about doing it) and at worst some kind of crazy existentialism (I thought about doing it and that means I did do it).
  22. If I may, the reason that it is stealing to download copies of songs is, as it's been established, because it's intellectual property theft. This distinction that those who download music aren't stealing because it's just a reproduction are failing to understand that the reproduction IS the idea itself. Let's pretend I write something brilliant and you quote me. It doesn't matter if you quote me in red ink, blue ink, or ink of any color or consistency. You're still quoting me and my ideas. The reproduction of those ideas is my property. Now, it is important to note that there are reasonable limitations on when a proper [edit: 'legal'] case on the theft thereof can be made. No, the use of salt does not count nor the sharpening of sticks, that would be absurd. May I recommend a review of the US copyright and patent law? It does an adequate job of addressing those limitations.
  23. What? I'm just saying!
  24. It isn't. "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights." - Ayn Rand But should those things be crimes? Yes. Impeding justice in those ways is just that - impeding justice. You're actually assisting in the crime. So, if someone stole something and you know who did it and where they went and you told the police that you didn't know anything, you would be aiding the criminal. Generally speaking, of course. We dont want to forget the context.
×
×
  • Create New...