mrocktor
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mrocktor
-
-
But if I made the case that the nature of the image was such that it inevitably made a reasonable man perceive its display as a sexual situation, then they would have to consider the case.
And yet if he made the case that the image was such that it inevitably made a reasonable man percieve it as a display of Christian faith, he would still have no case. And so the evasion of his essential error - that there is no "right" not to percieve that which one does not like - continues.
mrock
-
That sounds frighteningly like real teaching SN, good for you (I had no such luck in my "higher" education).
mrock
-
If you don't like implication as a manner of communication, that's easy to fix. As a result of your brazen misrepresentation of my position and your obstinate repetition of such misrepresentation in spite of a long series of protestations and clarifications on my part, I have come to the conclusion that your posts cannot be taken seriously and that it is futile to attempt to have a logical discussion with you.
At least he was honest about it. Each reader can now evaluate for himslef whether in fact my statements misrepresent CF's position or whether they merely whittle away the dead wood and get at the core of the issue.
You will notice that whether my interpretation is correct or not, this remains unanswered:
You can read all of CF's posts and you will not find the answer to those questions.The challenge stands: What right are you claiming to defend? How is it derived from man's nature?It is my personal opinion (and I'd like to explicitly separate this from the philosophical analysis of the issue) that many Objectivists seek rational validation of their sexual prudishness and contrive various arguments to support that idea. Myself, I have never seen a convincing argument in support of such a position.
I also have yet to see a convincing argumentation in support of the "sex is a celebration of values" proposition and all that is derived from it (and I have read The VOS, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, ITOE and OPAR). I consider myself an Objectivist because I see this as an application and not core to the philosophy.
I also find it wildly amusing that in a debate whether there is a right to be protected from a part of reality you don't like, the proponent ends up doing this:
You have also earned the dubious honor of being the first poster I ever put on my Ignore List.By his logic, he should sue me.
mrocktor
-
The two biggest things I gained by Objectivism:
1. Certainty: I always thought my ideas with regard to religion, politics, economics were right. Now I know that I was right to quit church, to rebel against governmental interference and that no matter how much of my money the government hands out it ain't helping the poor. It makes a world of difference.
2. No more guilt: Not much to say on this one. After you realize your only "duty" is to yourself, happiness is much easier to achieve.
Oh, and I bought a legit copy of Windows too
mrocktor
-
The book is not intended to extend existing microeconomic theory. Rather, I view it as an introduction, for novices, to the economic approach, particularly as expounded by Gary Becker and the Second Chicago School of Thought.
The book contains no economics at all. It is a exposition of compiled data. The author claims in the introduction that he is not establishing causation merely identifying correlation. If the "Second Chicago School of Thought" prides itself on looking at lots of data and drawing no conclusions - you could be right.
This statement contradicts the earlier one, calling Levitt's work a "statistical report." Statistics do not spontaneously arise of their own volition from any data set. (...)How does: "the author does not derive a theory or normative conclusion" contradict "the book is a statistical report"? Thats right, it doesn't. Sure, it takes work to glean information from a data set. Sure, the author may have implicit theories he was trying to prove. Irrelevant. If he wants to propose that the right to abort reduces crime - he should do so and support the argument with the statistics. Reporting the statistics and not drawing the conclusion makes him a coward or an idiot (or just a complete subjectivist, which is a subset of the second).
I'll just publish a study on the statistical correlation of the number of vegetarians with deforestation - you can draw your own conclusions on that too
mrocktor
-
Oh really? When you see a green traffic light, you expect the traffic on the intersecting street to stop. Can I just drive into you and argue in court that I wasn't responsible for what you expected?
Traffic rules are convention. You don't have a right to cross a green light and not be hit. You have a right to your life and property. Should someone damage your life or property by not following the traffic rules (which should be contractual, by the way) they are liable for violating your rights. The traffic rules are merely context.
Now, fast forward to the actual topic. A girl goes to a guy's house for lunch. On the living room wall is a 6' tall poster of Carmen Electra, completely naked. Now, the girl didn't expect that. Its against convention. But here is the kicker: no rights have been violated.
What kind of a person would you think I was if I did the above? Would you take what I say seriously? Would you believe a logical discussion was possible with me?An implied ad-hominem is still an ad-hominem. And it does not identify an aspect of reality, besides. I maintain my position based on fact: you have given no evidence otherwise.
The challenge stands: What right are you claiming to defend? How is it derived from man's nature? One sentence will suffice for the first, a paragraph for the second. Don't call me an idiot - prove me wrong.
mrocktor
-
I just read his "Objectivist Perspective on Psychology", very good reading.
mrock
-
He doesn't really mean offended. He's saying that an image may force a line of thought on a person that they may not want to think about and equating that to initiation of force.
The "right not to think about that which one finds offensive" is pretty close to the "right not to be offended". Maybe "the right not to think" or "the right not to perceive" describes better what he is defending. The point is, he has to define whichever right he is supposed to be claiming and ground that in reality.
mrock
-
But a choice exists as to whether you will suddenly and deliberately take off your clothes without warning me when you know full well that I'm standing right in front of you and looking in your direction and not expecting you to disrobe.
I never claimed, and never would claim, that seeing someone naked violates my rights. An action on my part cannot violate my rights. It is your deliberate removal of your clothes while being fully aware of the consequences on my mental state that violates my rights.
No one is responsible for what you expect or fail to expect. No one is responsible for your "mental state". There is no right being violated.
If CF can address the points I've laid out, either accepting the validity of my logic or refuting it then this discussion can be very simply resolved. All of the issues you're bringing up only further muddle the discussion because they have been brought up previously and distract the focus from the main issue of physical force vs. "mental force" and sexual determinism. Thank you.I think your identification of the fact that he is operating on the idea that one can "force" a thought was very pertinent - however I'd dispute the claim that the main issue is this, and not that he has yet to properly define which right he is claiming to be defending. I stand by my previous statement - when you boil it down he is defending a right not to be offended.
Perhaps both are too interrelated to discuss separately. In any case do proceed with your argument, I'll stand aside unless there is something too important to leave unsaid.
mrocktor
-
Clarify "action" vs. "metaphysical."
A choice exists in my setting up a projector to beam porn on to your wall. A choice does not exist as to whether I will be visible or invisible to you.
This topic is about the legal aspects of abnormal behavior, not the moral ones.And law should only exist to protect rights. Which is why your failure to explain how seeing someone naked violates any of your rights is blatant.
I find it remarkable that you consider the desire to maintain one's sexual integrity a whim. Out of curiosity, does this only apply to sex or also to other kinds of integrity? Do you think Howard Roark's desire to maintain his artistic integrity was a whim--something he couldn't possibly have a rational justification for?Did Howard Roark sue Keating for being "forced" to see his gross buildings? Did he argue that such a disgraceful image image was violating his integrity? No. Because Howard Roark knows that he does not have a right not to see something. Even if he doesn't like it.
Standard libertarian response. Let the victim walk away, without being entitled to any compensation or even the right to complain.We are establishing if there is a victim. In this case, you have failed to do so thus far.
If I infringe on a trademark or a copyright, do you tell its owner that if he doesn't like what I'm doing, he should simply close his eyes, look away, and walk away?If the difference between taking someones property and simply being is lost on you, that would explain why you fail to apply the proper principles here.
mrocktor
-
Do you now accept that my position has nothing to do with "a right not to be offended" ?
No.
Projecting an image on your home is an action, it is open to moral debate. "Projecting" an image on your retina is metaphysical, no one controls where the light waves reflecting on them go and no one is required to know, much less cater to, whatever your whim determines you want or do not want to see.
If you don't want to see, close your eyes, look away, walk away.
mrocktor
-
All of this discussion has become tangential to the central issue.
There is no right not to see something or not to hear something one does not like or approve of. If you enter another's property, you retain your rights (life, freedom, property) but you do not gain claims on him or his property.
*High volume music near your home is a violation of your property rights
*Projecting some image onto the wall of your home is a violation of your property rights
*Physically assaulting you is a violation of your rights (no matter where it occurs)
*Exposing you to some image you do not like is not a rights violation
*Saying something you do not want to hear is not a rights violation
There is no "implicit" agreement not to show pornography, nudity, swastikas or crosses when you invite someone into your property. There is no "implicit" agreement not to pee on your table when you patronize a restaurant.
What you are defending CF, whether you realize it or not, is a "right" not to be offended. All your "implicit agreement" and "consent" verbiage is obfuscation. No one needs anyone's consent to show someone the finger, call them names or strip naked.
On the property of others, the result of these actions is probably being thrown out, on "public property" specific arbitrary norms exist exactly because it's no ones property, on your own property you can do all those things with impunity (well, except for the scorn of rational people).
In Clinton's case, the exposure itself was not a right violation. If there was deception involved in getting the woman to go to his room - that is a rights violation. If a threat of violence or physical force had been used - that would be a rights violation.
mrocktor
-
The question anarchists ask is whether or not a government of any form can morally regulate what people do.
And in the case of that thread, the reason is the poster's complete philosophical subjectivism.
mrock
-
Also, I suggest you study logical fallacies and choose to use the one that "fits the data" best. Bizarre I know, but it could be fun. For instance:
A. The face of the devil has been known for ages, there are tons of historical records of what he looks like.
B. It has never been proven that Satan does not exist
C. If God is good and there is evil in the world, Satan must exist
D. Satan's influence in the world is extreme. Anyone who argues that he does not exist is obviously doing his work. He is the "deciever" after all.
You can then structure these non-arguments in a "rational" way:
1st. "Prove" Satan exists
2nd. "Prove" his image is known and coincides with the sighting
3rd. "Prove" that any argument to the contrary is proof of Satan's work
That should guarantee a good grade and may even be fun. Also, have at hand a point by point list of all the fallacies you used - if you get praise for your argument you can pull that out and proceed to explain why it's completely wrong and that truth actually does exist
(well, if you are feeling adventurous with regards to your grade anyway).mrock
-
That was an outstanding post David.
mrock
-
So you are saying that the only way government will work is with a majority of Objectivists in the society? I'm not trying to antagonize, but I don't see how this is any less utopian than anarchy.
No, I think the "critical mass" of rights respecting people is less than that. And full blown Objectivists are not the requirement either, only people who understand the government is not supposed to tell others how to live.
mrocktor
EDIT: and as to the comparison to anarchy, anarchy essentially requires everyone to be rational. A faction with 10% of a region's military might can cause civil war, a faction with 10% of the vote in government can at most be mildly anoying.
-
I dont understand how the universe could have always existed. I'm not saying the theory is wrong, but can someone explain to me how its possible?
Have you ever observed creation - in the true sense of the word? Something coming into existance out of nothing? Conversely, have you ever seen destruction? Some existent absolutely destroyed, turned into nothing at all?
It's very easy to accept that the Universe has always existed and always will when you realize that in your whole life you have never percieved "creation" or "destruction". You know those things can't happen.
There may very well have been a Big Bang, something went "bang" though. The North Pole analogy is flawed in that it admits that the Universe could have a beginning.
mrocktor
-
yet the very nature of government led it completely away from Objectivist principles.
Tragically incorrect. The massive acceptance of altruism-collectivism by the governed led it completely away from Objectivis principles.
A proper Objectivist government can keep a nation free as long as a majority of the population understand rights. Considering that currently in America the people who reject altruism-collectivism number less than 10%, I'd say the system is proven to work fantastically well.
mrocktor
-
1) He wants the CD;
OK
2) He can’t easily obtain the CD without stealing it;
So at this point he has identified a limit to his productive capabilities.
3) He knows that he won’t be caught (and that there won’t be any legal ramifications of any other sort);
He can't know this, in reality. He is gambling his freedom against a CD. Striking out reality from your example doesn't prove your point.
4) He knows no one will find out;
See (3) above.
5) He knows he won’t be racked by guilt or worry;
Now you are really rewriting reality. We established at (2) that he is incompetent to achieve the desired value productively - how is he not going to feel inadequate? Even if he rationalizes his actions ("BestBuy can afford it", "musicians are all millionaires and don't need the money") the fact that he could not achieve that value honestly will not just go away. He knows it and that is enough - he can evade this reality, but that won't help him live (I'm assuming that you are not arguing for evasion and that you understand why it is bad for one's life).
6) Jones will never steal anything again.
If your principle were correct (that it can be in one's self interest to steal), why wouldn't he? The fact that you even put this in your list of anti-reality hypotheticals shows that you, at some level, know that stealing isn't practical.
mrocktor
-
Furthermore, the existence of private "standards and practices" and a whole host of other private agreements and understandings which govern our various associations is entirely irrelevant to this issue.
The irrelevance goes deeper still. Most "standards and practices", private arbitration and other forms of non-governmental dispute settlement rest on the fact that government settlement is ultimately available. A company that follows a private arbiter's decision does so not merely because not doing so would stain its reputation (which it could) but also because having contractually agreed to the arbitration it can be sued in a "real court" if it fails to comply.
Once the option of "just shooting the other guy" is in play, all of that falls through. Your identification of the stolen concept is precise.
mrocktor
-
The fact is that they don't work and this has been extensively demonstrated. People are gullible, there is nothing surprising about that in a society that does not value reason.
mrock
-
mrocktor, how is it possible that you agree with the article completely? The article, as I see it, proclaims that "All civilians of an enemy country are guilty, simply because they live there".
I don't read it that way. I read it as:
1. Civilians who support the war effort are guilty (providing war materiel, providing food to combatants, providing shelter to combatants, providing intelligence to combatants etc).
2. Civilians who *morally* support the war effort are guilty (rejoicing in the streets when airliners impact buildings comes to mind).
3. It is an innocent's moral responsibility to confront, hide or get the hell out if he does not support what his govrement is doing.
4. If the innocents are compelled by force to aid the war effort, their blood is on the hands of whoever compelled them - not on the country defending itself.
As a consequence of (1) and (2) it is rightful to destroy infrastructure and industry that is supporting the war effort.
As a consequence of (3) and (4) the responsibility for "collateral damage" rests entirely on the aggressors side.
Deliberately targetting civilian populations *not* supporting the war effort and *not* sanctioning it is immoral. Think bombing the kurds in Iraq. That would have been immoral.
In conclusion (...)I agree with your summation. In my opinion by maintaining a double standard in the occupied territories with regards to the protection of individual rights, Israel basically remained at war with the palestinians continuously. I'm not saying that this was incorrect (your point about the intent to deny israeli's rights is taken), the lack of recognition that a war was on and not acting to win it (by destroying the enemy) was the mistake.
mrocktor
-
I have read the article and agree with it completely. Nothing that I wrote contradicts that article in any way.
mrocktor
-
Ifat,
Do some research on "homesteading" with regards to your questions about establishing property rights over previously unowned land.
Also, please think about the distinction between owning land and governing territory. The Brazilian government governs the territory where my house is, they don't own that land though (although they act like they do). This distinction unravels the apparent contradiction you mentioned.
As to your latest post, I agree that Israel was at war even after the territories were taken.
mrocktor
If you're fluent in a foreign language, help us with our band t-sh
in Marketplace
Posted
Portuguese: Ópera do Homem Pobre
mrock