hunterrose

You don't think he worked hard? Or applied intelligence, however much he had? I do agree with the general jist that some liked the good movie for bad reasons, though.

Whaddyamean "let stipulate"? Do you agree or don't ya? sN makes a good point. What definition of "practical" are you using?

Simple? I actually would like to get precise here. You can get the useful result of cooperation and obtain the "useful" result of preying on friends as well, so long as you aren't caught in the act. Why would a pragmatist assume otherwise in saying that it is not virtuous to prey on friends? You didn't answer the question. But I suppose we can get to that by and by. To extend my point, suppose a bum asks you for $100. A future consequence is that this bum may be the only one on hand some day when you are in an emergency and decide to save you based on whether you gave him the $100. For the sake of argument, I assume an infinite number of these future consequences will be consequential (if they end up happening) or caused as opposed to correlated (if you think it matters). My issue is how does the pragmatist process these infinite future consequences, given her finite amount of time.

So, if I understand you, something that might coincide with a choice is regarded as a "future consequence" of that choice? But do you, the pragmatist, know that? What useful results does not preying on friends lead to?

But this shackles the pragmatist to his capacity to experience consequences. To borrow from the looting thread, a pragmatic dictator is not concerned (and ought not be concerned according to Pragmatism?) with whether his means will lead to his disaster until the consequences actually play out, until his evil actually becomes consequential, until the bombs are over Baghdad or nukes over Hiroshima or the able men go on Strike. Isn't this myopia inevitable to pragmatism?

Ah, then you still don't understand. Something like random bomb-defusing is fundamentally different from something that is risky like a run in Pamplona. You have to grasp that before you will understand any argument against looting. Running the bulls is pretty risky, sure. But the means to go about such an endeavor at least has rational basis. You could actually prepare for something like this. Get in physical shape. Watch how (and how fast) bulls move. Learn the contours of the streets. Carry an emergency firearm (heh.) I don't know, wear armor and not wear red. While daredevilish, it's not inherently irrational... ...like defusing a bomb by cutting random wires. The MO a person accepts in such an act (life-or-death through random action) is objectively self-destructive, regardless of whether it takes the form of random bomb-defusing or other idiocies, regardless of whether or not it results in physical harm in a particular application of the principle. You're saying that these two things are fundamentally the same, merely a difference of degree. You see these two actions as both having chances of peril, and without concern for why they're perilous, begin running with philosophical scissors. You don't understand that the "mere" act of accepting an irrational process is self-destructive, again, regardless of its results in one case or another.

Really? Your Mao statements suggest otherwise. I'm not asking whether russian roulette and random bomb-defusing can be destructive, but whether they are destructive actions even if they don't result in physical injury. Surely you don't agree with that? That's not the argument against looting. The argument is (or rather the argument leads to the conclusion) that looting is destructive to the looter regardless of what results a particular case of looting leads to. FYI I'm sure the Objectivists here (of which I am not included) would say that the looter doesn't face risks in the first place, as "risk" implies there is a potential reward. It seems a digression, but I would say that whether or not X is enjoyed has little (if anything) to do with whether X is objectively destructive/impairing. Someone did make a similar argument not too long ago. It's somewhat interesting. Check it out.

Does that depend on whether the particular law is even just? *Reactionary analogy time* By your same argument, it would have been "unfair" to grant amnesty to runaway slaves - because doing so would be unfair to people who had bought their freedom from their masters legally? The only thing IMO unfair is that a legal immigrant would have to go through such a convoluted process in the first place. That others find a way to avoid this unjust process isn't the injustice.

Ask him to supersize my fries.

But anyone can't call every ethical choice an Objectivist one (or even a Catholic one for intents and purposes). E.g. raping isn't a proper ethical choice under Objectivism or (unless god tells you otherwise...) Catholicism. On the other hand, raping in any situation can be pragmatic to some folks. And it can never be pragmatic for other folks. And some other idiots will find it to be a pragmatic choice in some situations and non-pragmatic in others. Pragmatism (as an ideology in and of itself) is milquetoasty in that anything can be considered to be subsumed under it. In other words, pragmatism (ought this be capitalized?) is concerned with the end, and without concern for the means? That's certainly a difference between pragmatism and Objectivism... Uh oh... I'll have to pore through the rest of the posts of this thread, it is of some interest.

Ah, then you agree that looting does destroy it's victim. Good, I was afraid you were one of those unreasonable ones Next question: do you agree that playing russian roulette is the destruction of the player? Or that randomly pulling wires from a bomb is the destruction of the defuser? Well, okay. But does this point matter? I could/would argue that starving millions did impair what Mao would otherwise have obtained in life, but more importantly, an isolated example doesn't make your case. "The destruction of the looter" doesn't mean that every bank robber will be apprehended or every dictator hung out to dry. Pointing out evil men who weren't killed is as relevant to your debate as pointing out productive men who were killed.

Start with the simplest part. You can question whether victimizer is destroyed if you want, but the victim certainly is destroyed. You're making a distinction between destruction and less-than-destruction that Rand isn't making. When Rand says destruction here, I'm (fairly) sure she doesn't mean you will 100% cease to exist as a result of a given act of looting, but rather that there is no point here in distinguishing between annihilating a person, crippling a person, and slightly wounding a person - they are all acts of destruction. Don't give DavidOdden a reason to tell you about "morgue-avoidance" You're also stating this in a collective sense ("general decline in productivity") rather than an individual one?

Pragmatism seems (to me) to throw objectivity out the window. Anyone can call himself a pragmatist; the guy who plays russian roulette for cash, the gal who realizes it doesn't doesn't benefit her in the long run to play, the animal who takes the gun and murders people for fun and profit, the idiot who purposely shoots himself in the foot in order to not have to go to work today, etc. Of course, I don't exactly understand what pragmatism refers to. What would not count as pragmatism, beyond an explicit pursuit of detrimental consequences? What non-pragmatic system doesn't consider consequences, in some form or another? I would agree that pragmatism, as a stand-alone system, is incomplete moreso than incorrect.

Ok. I am fine with what you've said as femininity/masculinity so long as there aren't the explicit universal behavioral standards e.g. a woman in general should not be more aggressive than level X, having a beard is ideal for men, etc. blackdiamond reminds me that I don't entirely agree with the masculine/feminine qua efficacy stuff. I don't have any problem with considering the things you (Meta) mention as being masculine/feminine, though.

It's the idea of an obligation to save or not save a stranger that'd be immoral. Just as one is not morally required to put oneself in danger for a stranger, one is equally not obligated to stay out of danger simply because it may result in harm to oneself. Same thing for charity. When it goes against your better judgement? Maybe if you caused the fire

I don't have a problem with saying there is a bit of fanboyism here and there. E.g. I've seen a person or two here who believed Kant was the Destroyer of Humanity, but have never so much as touched one of his books; a couple of (out-of-context??) excerpts by others who didn't like Kant were enough for them. With that said, you're going to find that everywhere. There isn't any place, anywhere ('cept maybe the Gulch) where proving an argument is irrational will make everyone publicly renounce their disproven beliefs and acknowledge the superiority of your statements. Are you saying that this forum is worse than other places of debate? Cause it seems like you're merely saying that this forum (of free admission) isn't composed 100% of 100% rational people. Plus, as others have said, you might be using "dogmatism" a bit loosely. What evidence would it take to prove to you that this is not a hotbed of dogmatism? If there is nothing that could prove your charges of dogmatism to be false, then do the excerpts of posts you provided count as rational arguments? Personally, I like your avatar/user name, but who am I to talk

Okay. I'm starting to see where all the other stuff came in. What kind of objective ethical/aesthetics are you saying a woman should derive from her femininity? Because I don't see how you derive any objective oughts/aesthetic standards from the fact that women have breasts (or from any other feminine characteristics, for that matter).

Ah. I don't have too much problem with that. But it does seem to exclude feminine/masculine as describing actions, a definition of masculine/feminine that most folks wouldn't agree with. But aggressiveness isn't a result of puberty - guys are more aggressive (as a whole) well before puberty strikes. I'm not sure you'd be able to identify any volitional behavior as a result (or originating because) of puberty. It seems to limit the concepts of masculinity/femininity to biological characteristics.

I'm a bit sleep deprived right now though, so I may not make the most sense Attaining values requires attaining subvalues. If I'm trying to live, eating food is an objective value - objective in the sense that my goal of living requires eating food. Eating food wouldn't be an intrinsic value - e.g. people committing suicide doesn't require eating food, and so wouldn't be a value in such a context. 'Course, this alone wouldn't say how to determine whether living or committing suicide is itself an objective value. It just says that, in the context of an existing value, there are objective (sub)values. That's the more complicated question. In terms of capitalism/socialism, we would determine whether an economic system is a means to our end. Without digressing too much, capitalism is an objective value toward prosperity, and socialism an objective value toward material mediocrity equality. Since you're determining the objectivity of a value in terms of higher values, there is a potential difficulty in eventually having to determine the objectivity of a value that has no higher value. I don't entirely agree with Objectivism's answer at this point, so I'd just as soon not be the one to explain it. But it has been delved into fairly regularly around here. Look up just about any topic in the ethics subforum that has "ultimate value" or "life" in the title. This seems a good one at a quick glance.

I wouldn't say that. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that topics can digress and arguments can be misconstrued, unintentionally and not. But this is due to the general nature of debating people with different knowledge and beliefs, not specifically a fault of this forum, its predominant ideology, or the people who tend to frequent this site. If you prove the other guy wrong, he either acknowledges it or he doesn't. Either way, good ideas win out.

You said a lot of things I'd take issue with, but this is probably the most contentious. I don't think the purpose of art is necessarily to show us something unexperienced, but rather to show us something ideal. Big, big, big difference. Not unlike claiming Joyce to be the greatest writer of the 20th century? I'm afraid that passage only reaffirmed our disagreement on the purpose of art (and my disdain for Joyce). Before reading that I'd certainly never experienced a day in the beautiful life of a turd. The passage indeed rebels against the status quo. But doesn't the excerpt come across to you as rather pointless?

Apparently too late! Part of that may be due to some inaccurate(?) words you used, though. When the folks around here speak of "pragmatic", they mean myopic expediency e.g. stealing lunch because you forgot to bring your wallet, and not a case of buying lunch because you're hungry. On the other hand, when you used "pragmatic" here, I think you mean serving a purpose or contextually beneficial, and are using it in contrast to "intrinsic" (i.e. not valuable through serving a purpose). Is this correct? I note that a universe without intrinsic values (as our godless one is) is not the same as a universe without objective values. Contextual values can be objective even if they aren't intrinsic.

You're implying that being beautiful isn't an aspect of femininity? Or that being in a dieted-down state (her "masculine" face) is mutually exclusive to femininity? The ever-present problem with the way femininity has been discussed is that virtually any quality that is more prevalent in females than males can be classed as "feminine". Are PMS mood swings an instance of femininity or being violent one of masculinity? But a deep voice is not indicative of overall body size or efficacy, but rather, as you say, differences in vocal chords - it's not necessarily something that a rational man would value.

Ah. I play a good number of FPS and fighters (mostly Halo 2 and VF4 right now), but rarely online. Mostly single-player or with/against friends in the same room. Maybe when I finally get that PS3/360 I'll get more into the online stuff...

Because a lot of people always (and always will?) want to believe that the grass is greener on the other side of reality. Envisioning "better" worlds and higher orders because they aren't satisfied with this one, etc, etc. Or more of what AS1633 said. But from my observations, the rejections of those crude versions isn't a principled, objective one. E.g. Christians don't say that Abraham was wrong to attempt to sacrifice his son when god said so... they merely mumble that god will no longer ask such things of us (without any condemnation of a god for asking for such things...) Personally, I think religion is just as persistent now with an additional danger of being presented as more rational. Religion, now with only 5% poison. I'd say the essence of religion (and some other things) relies on not seeing the significance of treating some arbitraries as true. They do not see (intentionally or unintentionally) how treating a particular arbitrary claim is true is, on principle, harmful to them. That's what emoticons are for