The Passion of the Koresh

No, they are never the same, under any circumstances. Wasn't there a sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted that was about this? That's it? That's the utmost pleasure? What a bleak determination. Guilt is a rope that wears thin. So physical sensation is divorced from emotion? So the evil of porn is a result of its supposed opportunity cost: a loving relationship. ... ... Really, my love is something another person has to earn. I don't search for people to love. I definitely don't attempt to win the love of others; this kind of histrionic crap puts my life in their hands while I reshape myself for the supposed benefit of their affection. To top that off, I have absolutely no interest in someone who would be attracted to me if I danced like some puppet to get their attention. No, it isn't okay, and that's not what I said. You asked for the difference. Hedonism is a completely different topic, as just about any possible stimuli can be misused by a hedonist, not just sex. What travesty is this? "[W]e are the same"??? Two people are not the same. One is not equal to two. Why would you allow any loss of individuality?

Volition and morality are mutually inclusive. All wrongdoing has a target, and the absence of their consent is assumed. How can any action people initiate be without a spiritual component?

Since two different acts are not the same, they have, ipso facto, different emotional or spiritual considerations. Eating a bag of chips has emotional and spiritual considerations of its own, as do all actions done to create a sensation an individual deems pleasurable. Regarding something you said earlier... Why is "gets off" in quotes? Do men fake their orgasms when they use porn? The difference is honesty. Pretend is the key word. I respect porn stars. What reson do I have to disrespect them if I don't see what they do as wrong? I thought I already conceded that prostitution and porn were seperable only by the camera. I apologize for calling it that, as I was being patronizing out of frustration. Old habits die hard, I guess. I think you should explain more clearly how the integrity is destroyed, and perhaps define integrity as well. Is this becoming a semantic argument? One or more of the parties involved in an assassination are, by definition, not voluntary participants.

Yes, it's like dry cleaning or an oil change. If there's more to it, does that necessarily make it wrong? A bag of chips does not have the nutritional value that a square meal has. If you substitute a square meal with chips, then you've damaged your health, and shown little regard for your well-being. Does the use of chips require that it substitute a square meal? I don't eat a whole bag in one sitting, and I don't think Frito Lay is to blame when someone does. If a man were to pay a woman to cuddle with him, pretend to be interested in him, meet his friends and parents, dance with him, go out to dinner with him, share her hopes and dreams with him, then have sex--that would be the disastrous substitution for romantic love you're supposing prostitution is. As for the quote you gave, it should be clear from the way I'm defending prostitution that my enjoyment of such sexual activity would not be divorced from my values. It must be because you're a sexual tyrannosaurus, and you're simply too powerful to post here. Or, maybe, it's because you're continuously insulting.

This essay of yours... This is just a rough draft, right? Why? Are they being eaten? I'm not being sarcastic here; the statement that beings are regarded as chunks of meat can only be taken literally in this context, as it is not analogous to any part of prostitution. Is the prostitute dead after she works? Try using the definition that refers to the exchange of sex for money. The second definition (according to Merriam_Webster): 2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : DEBASE <prostitute one's talents> is a colloquial reaction to the first definition. Using both definitions obfuscates the issue. It is evil because it destroys integrity, and because it necessitates the appearance of integrity. Okay...so how does it destroy integrity? The self esteem of the prostitute is automatically lowered when people are willing to pay for their service? Which brings up something not in the essay: So then it's a complex service. You know, I can't think of any service that in any way facilitates a split between the mind and the actions of the body.

Theory seems to be begging us to weaken ourselves by abandoning our critical thinking, so that we may be less of a threat to those who prefer not to think. Ah, but wait: he concedes that thinking may have some purpose after all, just not so much that it becomes intimidating to those who wallow in stupidity as a defense mechanism only a little. Yes. Now that I've given the answer you either feared or refused to believe, what case can you possibly have against this philosophy? Is this part of the "one" question I should ask myself? We already have cracked the secret to life. A is A. What a relief that must be. You can turn your head away, and be content that one day, the people graciously and futilely trying to reason with you will be gone. There's just one problem: you depend on reason to live. Whether it's from yourself or (in your case) from other people, science, technology, logic, analysis, philosophy, and every other concept and procedure that makes human life as unique and valuable as it is are irrevocable and also supporting the existence you claim to value. I find it appropriate that you imply life is precious because it ends and is irreplaceable. When you attack reason, you attack life, and life becomes little more than the opposite of death, with no accomplishment or value in between.

I think it was rhetorical--I don't remember. From now on, every time I directly contradict myself like this I will cut off one of my fingers. It was a mistake to ask for a character judgement when I'm defending the morality of an action. What's not to understand about it? Two (or more, or less) people film sexual activity and there is a demand for footage of sexual activity. They sell the film. The motivation for doing so is to make money.

It's okay for you to make the requirements of a relationship known (like what aptitude with what sexual maneuvers are necessary to be a participant), and to terminate the relationship if they are not acknowledged. However, I don't think you should resent someone who decides not to go along with it. Are you diminished as a result of their decision? The quality of a bag of sugar is not an issue if the user actually wanted flour. Look, there are not that many Objectivists, let alone Objectivist women in this world. If the Objectivist women you meet aren't interested in wearing the "fun suit," it might be for reasons other than their philosophy. There just aren't enough of them around to have the variety of tastes that might match up with yours. The "immoral value betraying pervert" part seems uncharacteristic of Objectivism anyways. Would I be writing vicious libel by saying that Ayn Rand liked sex? It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Avoid calling yourself an agnostic. While the atheist lacks belief in God, the agnostic believes that one cannot know if there is a god. This isn't letting the Christians down easy, it's just a way of redefining "knowledge" as something unusable.

Oops. This is a mistake on my part. I confuse legality with ethics occasionally because people who feel that something is unethical often strive to make it illegal. The line is drawn when a camera is involved. That's pretty much it. I'd like to know what proportion this is, and where you got this information from, but I suspect that you're right. A great many pornstars are not "model" citizens. When an industry is condemned as shameful, wicked, or immoral it tends to get seedy as a consequence. If it is made illegal (justly or unjustly), this is amplified. There's a significant difference between Nevada's brothels and the pimps on the street choking their cut from one of their girls. In Nevada the prostitutes are checked weekly for STDs, monthly for HIV, require the use of condoms, and the owner becomes liable if a customer is infected. I'm not saying that the legality makes it moral, but you should consider carefully how a society's attitude about a profession can direct it. Recall Prohibition. This point you're making about pornstars doesn't directly condemn pornography. The quality of the people involved in an act is not the deciding factor in the morality of the act itself. Taking a look at a person's character can be a useful start when judging their actions, but the people are not the actions. This strikes me as petty and inane. I'm not sure why you would even bother making this kind of statement, except as a joke or an introduction to your own personal tastes or...what? I guess I shouldn't have asked if I didn't want an opinion, but could you follow this up with something more substantial? It's a joke. Yes, I know it's not funny. Thanks for sharing. What is the deal with you people and Ayn Rand's affair? I don't recall anyone talking about an exchange of money or footage regarding this incident, and I really don't think it would matter. I thought Objectivism pertained to her philosophy. You people are worse than a sewing circle. That's hilarious. Seriously, I can read this again and again and laugh for days.

It seems that Peikoff is disinterested in porn. I don't care, and I think this has been blown out of proportion. I've been rabidly defending porn since I first turned the age of 18 (and could admit to viewing it without having others claim that my precious, young mind was being corrupted and "help" me). It always infuriates me when people refer to hard-working (yes, it is actually hard work, risky, and stressful), paid professionals doing their jobs as "scum" or "sluts." Calling them "whores" is merely a misnomer; prostitution is another industry I have no objection to and would support its legalization. The choice between what two consenting adults do with each others' bodies (in many cases more than two), to one another, for whatever reason, is not yours to make. A scorn for the supposed "emptiness" of pleasure gained from viewing the act (when the viewed are duly paid for their intellectual property) is a scorn for the act itself. There are plenty of sites now run by couples who know and love one another quite well, who are also selling videos of their lovemaking. Are they also trash?

This is one of my pet peeves. Dune fans have always rabidly attacked Lynch for what they feel is an almost blasphemous misinterpretation of the first book. What they don't acknowledge is that (and I'm getting my information from Dreamer of Dune) Frank Herbert himself had a lot to do with that movie. Before it was edited, cut, cut again, he enjoyed it and admired David Lynch's artistry. What ended up happening was that the movie was continually overhyped, the edits (the original version was a magnificent five hours of story) to make the movie more economical (more run time per day) stole a lot of story, and then critics descended on it, picking it apart like vultures. To be fair to Lynch himself, he is also disappointed with it. The only real issues Herbert had with the movie were: 1. The baron was a bit more of a caricature in the movie than a cold, malevolent tyrant 2. Paul Atreides causes it to rain in the end. This destroys the message of Dune Messiah--that the leader of the jihad is completely unable to contain or control it. It also makes religion divine, rather than a skillfully manipulating political organization. By the way, that "long version" of his you've seen on TV...that's an Alan Smithee. Lynch didn't have anything to do with it, and you'll notice that they recycled and reused footage from prior scenes to extend it. As for the series, it wasn't bad, but next to the intensity of Lynch it looks awfully prosaic. Anyways, back on topic (sorry). A few irrational movies that I can't stand: 1. Signs Well done, but really a terrible message. The movie offers evidence of a god in its fictional world, but the priest is surrendering to him. Since the alternative is (according to Christianity) Hell, he has to choose to obey a god that killed his wife on a whim, allowed aliens to hunt humans for sport, gave his son a life-threatening case of asthma (apparently to save the boy's life once), and--to be fair--made his space angels vulnerable to the universal solvent and pantry doors. 2. The Passion of the Christ...no comment... 3. Every movie from the creators of Independence Day and almost everything having to do with Jerry Bruckheimer

The end message was positive. Rather than continue the awful farce of his dream world, he jumped back to reality. A virtual world is a deadly temptation for a mind. Too many people are willing to sacrifice power and control for entertainment as is. Just imagine what happens when people are given an opportunity to manipulate their senses in order to "verify" those idiotic things they prefer to believe. The concept of virtual reality is becoming the subjectivist's weapon of choice.

A little piece of advice: Stay sober. A couple of UK football fans got a little excited after a Middlesbrough win and now answer to the names of Crazy Horse Invincible and Spaceman Africa. ... ... Seriously.

I went from Marxist to Social Darwinist, then to Socialist and then finally to a confused and bitter cynic. I read Atlas Shrugged about a year ago, but hated myself too much to accept it. If you despise yourself, it is nearly impossible to see any virtue in selfishness. Then something funny happened about five or six months ago. I was watching the movie Misery (the one based on the Stephen King book) and, oddly enough, that was what got me thinking about Ayn Rand again. It was the scene in which the author burned his own book, the one that was forced out of him by the crazy woman that brought Objectivism back into my mind. I thought "how can anyone think they have a right to someone else's work, and have the effrontery to force it out of them?" I guess I should be embarrassed that I didn't immediately see the good in what I had read earlier, that some corny horror movie should bring the issue up, but in a mind as full of malformed ideas and confused rationalizations as mine was, things don't work out the way they should. Since I've begun studying Objectivism in earnest 1. I've gotten a job that I've stuck with, and actually feel better about myself for it 2. Made plans to move out of my parents' house, and pay for my own education and necessities, rather than wasting their money and their time (I felt parasitic before; I knew they were supporting me but I was too ashamed/afraid to ask why) 3. No longer resent the people who supported me (biting the hand that feeds you is--I think--a symptom of being chronically dependent). I had the courage to finally ask them what I was worth to them, and my relationship with my parents and family is no longer in jeopardy. I am now safer because I questioned altruism, and I work harder to give back to those who give to me.

Well, the exact quote from their site has those quotation marks around it. When I put "cause" in quotation marks in my subsequent question, I was emulating them in order to preserve the apparent meaning. I wasn't entirely sure what they meant, though, so I probably shouldn't have even bothered with the whole thing.

I was under the assumption that pirates, like bandits and murderers, did not have much in the way of a conscience to begin with. Maybe privateer would be a better word for Ragnar. Being the "best" pirate in the whole wide world is a pretty dubious honor. I don't think Ragnar would have "nevertheless" continued his one-man blockade if there was no justification. The skills you use to defend and protect honor and reason by violent action can always be converted into peaceable ones. If something is lost in the conversion, so be it. You'll just have to work a little harder and practice some more. Competence, like money, is related to virtue in the way it is used and grown. If you hire someone for the purpose of assassinating another for immoral reasons, you have used money for evil, and the assassin's skill for evil as well. There is no saving you from what you have done; the assassin's professionalism and the fact that you reward his competence with your hard-earned cash cannot somehow make the assassination virtuous. Competence is as good for you as good ol' H2O. If someone poisons your water supply with dioxin, you could argue that if not for the water, the dioxin wouldn't have reached you. This doesn't mean water itself was the problem. Hmm...I have a quote from Bodyguard Services International Ltd The last part is certainly food for thought. Is Ragnar fighting for a "cause"?