intellectualammo
-
Posts
1874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by intellectualammo
-
-
" It’s not easy to be cruel to someone who is down and out. After all, most of us feel ashamed when walking by a homeless person or watching kids crammed into over-crowded classrooms"
Ashamed? Why would one feel ashamed by that? Has nothing to do with me.
-
Just saw this article on Salon published:
" If you’re worried about where America is heading, look no further than Tennessee. Its lush mountains and verdant rolling countryside belie a mean-spirited public policy that only makes sense if you believe deeply in the anti-collectivist, anti-altruist philosophy of Ayn Rand. It’s what you get when you combine hatred for government with disgust for poor people."
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/tennessee_ayn_rands_vision_of_paradise_partner/
More:
" In the Randian universe, it’s not enough to starve public education and the poor. You also must blame the poor both for their poverty and for the crumbling educational system. If a poor child is failing it must be the fault of low-income parents. So how do you drive the point home? You take away their welfare checks if their kids don’t do well in school, which is precisely what the Tennessee House and Senate are about to do. "
-
Do you know where any of the sexual abuse occured? The classroom? In the hallway? Where?
-
Secondhander: Rand: The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”
Since you are Man and you want to live, you ought to live in accordance with Man's nature.
I think it is also applicable to sex. If you are a man, you ought to live life as a man; if you are a woman, you ought to live life as a woman.
Pawlik:
Femininity—the “ought” of what a woman should do—is based on the nature of a woman, i.e., what a woman is. The same is true for masculinity. Let us now do something very unpopular: define the “is” of men and women.
The nature of the woman, the reason for her existence as a woman differentiated from a man, is that she is the sex capable of child bearing. The nature of the man, his differentiation from a woman, is that he is the sex capable of fertilizing the woman.
This is not to say or even to suggest that all sexual interaction must be done with the intent to procreate. This is not to refer to the process of child making in any manner whatsoever. This is to suggest the definition of what makes a person a woman as opposed to a man. That difference, at its most fundamental level, is the woman is the child bearer and the man is not.
Dennis, I also very much like the N.B.quote:Men, who do not carry the “burden” of childbearing, are designed for one purpose: mastering reality. Men’s bodies are taller, bigger, and more muscular than a woman’s. They have less body fat, a higher center of gravity, and broader shoulders. Their entire design has one central purpose: efficacy.
Women’s bodies, on the other hand, are not designed solely for efficacy. A woman’s body is smaller, shorter, and less muscular than a man’s. It has a layer of body fat to protect her and a lower center of gravity. She has supple breasts, wide hips, and monthly periods. The central design of a woman’s body is not efficacy: it is child bearing.
SoftwareNerd: I have trouble trying to make out your response to me. Would you agree that there is a difference between a man and a woman? That a man is a man, and not a woman? That a leaf is a leaf, and not a stone?The difference in the male and female sex roles proceeds from differences in man’s and woman’s respective anatomy and physiology. Physically, man is the bigger and stronger of the two sexes; his system produces and uses more energy; and he tends (for physiological reasons) to be more physically active. Sexually, his is the more active and dominant role; he has the greater measure of control over his own pleasure and that of his partner; it is he who penetrates and the woman who is penetrated (with everything this entails, physically and psychologically). While a healthy aggressiveness and self-assertiveness is proper and desirable for both sexes, man experiences the essence of his masculinity in the act of romantic dominance; woman experiences the essence of her femininity in the act of romantic surrender.
-
Over the weekend I finished reading Understanding Objectivism and I understand rationalism better than I ever did before. How the is sex differentiation rationalism? Do you think that a man and a woman are bogus concepts or something? How are they floating? They are based upon observation.And ...
Rationalism is Rationalism.
QED
-
I'd like to read one on gender construction through scent.
-
Dennis, I don't think she made a mistake with how she defined masculinity:
What she did was how I started with in the Objectivism and Homosexuality thread:Men, who do not carry the “burden” of childbearing, are designed for one purpose: mastering reality. Men’s bodies are taller, bigger, and more muscular than a woman’s. They have less body fat, a higher center of gravity, and broader shoulders. Their entire design has one central purpose: efficacy.
Women’s bodies, on the other hand, are not designed solely for efficacy. A woman’s body is smaller, shorter, and less muscular than a man’s. It has a layer of body fat to protect her and a lower center of gravity. She has supple breasts, wide hips, and monthly periods. The central design of a woman’s body is not efficacy: it is child bearing.
Man is Man
A woman is a woman
A man is a man
While both are human beings (as in Man), they are different biologically. One is a man(male), one is woman(female).
Then she goes to: A woman is a child bearer, man is not, as he is the sex capable of fertilizing her . Then builds upon that to masculinity and femininity and hero worship. So it goes from the biological basis to the conceptual. I think she is able to keep what she said tied to reality and not having it floating like rationalism. Now, she has a chapter on homosexuality that I am dying to read, and may just have to take a peek at it.
-
I don't like the term ortho Objectivism.
I have wanted to read Brandens book on romantic love. The visibility principle was addressed in The Selfish Path to Romance by Kenner and Locke. I just bought Pawlik's book, did a quick search, it's not included. It may be outside the scope of the book. I will read this work of hers, but it's going to be a little while before I do. She does seems to hold Rands view on femininity and masculinity, but expands a bit, and only disagrees with the comment Rand made on a woman President to a certain extent, saying the woman could still look up to her husband. I'll talk more about the work whenever I get to it.
-
This is:
"It is the very nature of men that gives rise to masculinity and the nature of women that gives rise to femininity. Femininity and masculinity are the conscious, chosen behaviors of women and men to act in accordance with their nature as women or men respectively."
"Hero worship is based on the metaphysical natures of men and women, i.e., what a woman is and what a man is. The less efficacious woman looks up to and admires the stronger man. A male’s sexuality is wrapped up in heroism, and a woman’s sexuality is wrapped up in admiring him because this is, after all, what has allowed civilization to exist and to prosper. Sex is a celebration of life. Life is the standard of erotica."
(Both quotes from The Roots of Gender Roles chapter in Amber Pawlik's book Objectivist Sexuality) (the chapter can be read here: http://www.amberpawlik.com/Gender.html)
When I chose a men's fragrance to wear from the one I am currently wearing Santos de Cartier, to Cartier Declaration, to my favorite Nautica Voyage, I am choosing to wear them in accordance with my nature as a man: I test them, see if I like them, see if it can be used to express my masculinity to a woman through the air when I walk by. They responded most to Nautica Voyage, Tim McGraw SOUL2SOUL. I wouldn't wear a woman's fragrance and when a woman asks what I am wearing and I say "it's Cartier' s Baiser Vole fragrance for women" "for women... hmmmm" she'd say, then I couldn't say to her "I'm secure enough in my masculinity to wear that." I am secure in my masculinity, so I don't wear it. I want one that can make her look up at me as the man I am and be like "fuck me!", not over at me and be like "what the fuck?" so to speak. I would not want the attention of a women who would be attracted to me if I was wearing Baiser Vole. Which I wouldn't be wearing anyways. I don't want one that would raise such questions, but produce such exclamations, letting her know I am a man, masculine, and not mistaking that any.
-
As I have been going through many podcasts of her father's, I came across this one where he interviews her on her novel:
http://www.peikoff.com/2011/06/27/i-interviewed-my-daughter-kira-peikoff-on-her-new-novel/
-
Peikoff answers this question in a very recent podcast:
http://www.peikoff.com/2013/04/08/why-did-cherryl-brooks-commit-suicide-and-was-the-act-justified/
Happiness, did you submit it that question to him?
-
This reminds me of an old thread of mine:
http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=22714
-
I was wondering if anyone has heard about or read Amber Pawlik's book, Objectivist Sexuality. I'm seriously thinking of buying it. This is the site:
http://www.amberpawlik.com/ObjectivistSexuality.html
You can find some of that book on the site, I haven't read all of this, just a little:
The Foundation of Objectivist Sexuality:
http://www.amberpawlik.com/ObjectivistSexuality-1.html
Here is another, The Roots of Gender:
http://www.amberpawlik.com/Gender.html
Here is another chapter on the site that deals with the assault masculinity:
-
In a free society, mdegges, property owners can definitely say that they don't want certain people on their property, whether rational or irrational reasons, as that go's along with their property rights. Business can discriminate, for sure. They would not be forced to hire anyone they do not want to hire, or deal with, etc. Blacks, gays, etc. So if they don't want gay marriage to take place on their property, then that's that. They can say only heterosexual weddings. This leaves them perhaps vulnerable in the marketplace, but that would be them simply exercising their property rights. Have you read Rand said about "private racism"?
-
Prometheus spoke thusly to Gaea:
I wanted to mention that when I was looking at my Kindle edition of the Anthem graphic novel, ( http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Anthem-Graphic-Novel/dp/0451232178 ) in it Gaea is shown pregnant, and when he spoke about his son, you see his son in two or three depictions."And I have read of a goddess," I said, "who was the mother of the earth and of all the gods. Her name was Gaea. Let this be your name, my Golden One, for you are to be the mother of a new kind of gods."
-
Wrong. Person A wanted it because he always liked it. No where did it say he was going sell it, you are assuming that. He told the whole truth completely. Person A knew the value of it, while B did not. Nothing morally wrong for A to ask B if he could have it or buy it for a few bucks.Yes, there was. You're saying that the reason why you want to buy the book is because you always liked it, but never had a copy. In reality, the reason is that it's worth 10.000 dollars.
-
Nicky, there was no lying involved in my example.
-
If B has a copy of the 1936 first edition of Ayn Rands We The Living, and A knows that it's market worth would fetch at least a cool 10k, but B doesn't know that and then asks B "Hey, you think I could have that, or buy it off of you for a couple of bucks? I've always liked that novel, just never had a copy of it myself" and B says, "Take it. Someone bought it for me years ago, but I like reading nonfiction books on Russia, not fiction."
Perfectly moral.
-
From my link:
" What is doubly wrong is for government—the agency of force—to change the meaning of a fundamental, rational concept"
An epistemological crime. Like concept stealing, severing it from its original genetic roots: Man and woman.
How does or would it apply in regards to filing joint income taxes, to having them on vehicle insurance, to health insurance, etc. Would this ruling exercise force against them by adding same-sex partner? Or would they have a choice?
-
Has this been discussed in this thread, I haven't gone through all the pages yet. There is a quote Rand has on marriage in it:
http://ronpisaturo.com/blog/2013/03/28/i-am-married-to-a-woman/
[T]he concept “marriage” denotes a certain moral-legal relationship between a man and a woman, which entails a certain pattern of behavior, based on a mutual agreement and sanctioned by law.
— Ayn Rand (an atheist) (1966,1967), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New York: The Objectivist, p. 37 (Chapter 4).
-
I recommend Ayn Rands Anthem that was made into a graphic novel:
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Anthem-Graphic-Novel/dp/0451232178
That may appeal to him more than just plain text. I own both. But keep in mind the cover is in color not the rest.
-
Thanks.
I had a child with my ex-wife. I was very vocal about my views on educating our daughter and raising her and it eventually led to me divorcing her over. Objectivism, Ayn Rand, had come between us to where our differences were irreconcilable.
Are you familiar with Rands essay "The Comprachicos"?
Or
Lisa VanDamme, at VanDamme Academy:
http://www.vandammeacademy.com/
See the writings of Lisa VanDamme:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/contributors/lisa-vandamme.asp
http://capitalismmagazine.com/author/LisaVanDamme/
Lisa VanDamme’s blog, Pedagogically Correct:
http://www.pedagogicallycorrect.com/
See Leonard Peikoff’s lecture, The Philosophy of Education:
https://estore.aynrand.org/p/64/philosophy-of-education-mp3-download
-
I am trying to strengthen them.
-
In AR' s Anthem, we have her only pregnant heroine, and the only hero and heroine starting to raise a family, I think it's noteworthy:
Dagny in Rands AS , sees two children with their mother in Atlantis in the following passage:Then here, on this mountaintop, with the world below me and nothing above me but the sun, I shall live my own truth. Gaea is pregnant with my child. Our son will be raised as a man. He will be taught to say "I" and to bear the pride of it. He will be taught to walk straight and on his own feet. He will be taught reverence for his own spirit.
The recaptured sense of her own childhood kept coming back to her whenever she met the two sons of the young woman who owned the bakery shop. She often saw them wandering down the trails of the valley— two fearless beings, aged seven and four. They seemed to face life as she had faced it. They did not have the look she had seen in the children of the outer world— a look of fear, half-secretive, half-sneering, the look of a child’s defense against an adult, the look of a being in the process of discovering that he is hearing lies and of learning to feel hatred. The two boys had the open, joyous, friendly confidence of kittens who do not expect to get hurt, they had an innocently natural, non-boastful sense of their own value and as innocent a trust in any stranger’s ability to recognize it, they had the eager curiosity that would venture anywhere with the certainty that life held nothing unworthy of or closed to discovery, and they looked as if, should they encounter malevolence, they would reject it contemptuously, not as dangerous, but as stupid, they would not accept it in bruised resignation as the law of existence. “They represent my particular career, Miss Taggart,” said the young mother in answer to her comment, wrapping a loaf of fresh bread and smiling at her across the counter. “They’re the profession I’ve chosen to practice, which, in spite of all the guff about motherhood, one can’t practice successfully in the outer world. I believe you’ve met my husband, he’s the teacher of economics who works as linesman for Dick McNamara. You know, of course, that there can be no collective commitments in this valley and that families or relatives are not allowed to come here, unless each person takes the striker’s oath by his own independent conviction. I came here, not merely for the sake of my husband’s profession, but for the sake of my own. I came here in order to bring up my sons as human beings. I would not surrender them to the educational systems devised to stunt a child’s brain, to convince him that reason is impotent, that existence is an irrational chaos with which he’s unable to deal, and thus reduce him to a state of chronic terror. You marvel at the difference between my children and those outside, Miss Taggart? Yet the cause is so simple. The cause is that here, in Galt’s Gulch, there’s no person who would not consider it monstrous ever to confront a child with the slightest suggestion of the irrational.”
Lotus Birth and rights
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted · Edited by intellectualammo
I just heard of what is called "lotus birth" in the news which seems to be a new birthing trend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_birth
Now, I have always held the position that only once the fetus is outside the womb AND the cord is clamped and cut, is a baby born and acquires rights, since the fetus has become a completely physically separate living human being from the host (mommy).
We know Rands view on when rights occur and her view on abortion: until its BORN does it acquire rights. And Peikoff mentioned cord cutting in at least two podcasts I've listened to. So to me the dividing line is the clamping and cutting of the cord.
I wonder how this goes with the lotus birth? To me, the fetus is outside the womb, but not yet a separate human being.
I wonder what you guys think about lotus birth and when you think rights actually begin.