FeatherFall

Respectfully, I'd like to disagree. I think Nick Provenzo nailed it on the head. The entire movie gave me a sick feeling. I get that way when I see horrible stuff happening to undeserving people, over and over again. Sure, the acting and cinematography were good. That's part of what left the pit in my stomach. And that locksmith almost got his daughter killed with the story he told her -- another thing that made me want to puke. -edit to close spaces.

Care to tell us why you think so? Did any of the character's redeeming qualities overpower the omnipresent malevolent sense of life?

I was going to wait until I finished reading the middle of this thread, but this is something I would like to address now since it was brought up again. None of the traits Capitalism Forever listed are traits exclusive to one sex. In fact, they all could be seen as good traits of either sex... Except, of course, being "attractive in a feminine way" and "Handsome in a manly way." The best I can come to approximating what these must mean are floating abstractions. But handsomeness could even be attributed to an attractive woman, even if it is commonly used today as a snarky insult.

After looking at some of Capitalism Forever's posts, I realized something. The thread that I read in its entirety was a different one. I'll see everyone back here in a couple of weeks.

Well put. Since I was in high-school I've wondered what happened to the man. I'm always interested in hearing more that will help me understand it, and this article has.

Blackdiamond, I am not going to hypothesize Ayn Rand's choices given differing situations. Do you see how this course is futile? It would, however, be efficacious to actually cite a different source for that opinion. All right. At one point (maybe more), during a Q&A, her position on the "psychological immorality" was clear. But software nerd brings up a good point, what the heck does that mean? Does it belong in the realm of philosophy, and thus a part of Objectivism, or is it part of psychology, and thus, not a part of Objectivism? Ayn Rand usually backed up her assertions. This instance is an exception. Now, again, I must ask you to explain how the context of other things she has said supports her conclusion. If you prefer, don't even reference her, just tell me why homosexuality is immoral. I can think of several concrete examples of homosexuality being immoral. But they all rely on showing how it would be wrong given a specific person's value context. I am looking for the reason why homosexuality is immoral in every case. Touché. I'll qualify: She clearly distinguished music from other art forms. She explained that the psycho-epistemological role of music was reversed compared to the other arts, and stated that there are personal and cultural differences in experiencing music. But, she explicitly said a valid objective criterion for evaluation has yet to be found. Her position is incomplete, and not relevant to the discussion anyway. You mentioned some of Capitalism Forever's relevant posts. I'll go back and check some of them out. But, if you have a specific one in mind, a post number would be nice.

Thanks, that clears up some confusion I had. Actually, I did read the thread, but it looks like everything didn't stick. Oh, and shoot me a post number next time (my settings include 10 posts to a page). ...In the debate section. But whether or not this was a philosophical conclusion at the time of her death is in dispute. As for point number four, anybody on this forum who gave "reasons" as sparse as those she offered in that Q&A would be asked to elaborate, and rightly so. Seeing as how she isn't around to do so, the job is left to those living who hold that position. This brings us back to "a different issue altogether." You seem to think that her position on homosexuality was clear. If it truly is clear, it should be a simple task for you to spell it out for us. You'd have an easier time of it than showing her position on music, since she didn't have one. By the way, I'd like to see if you would address what I said in post #712 regarding hero-worship, since EC hasn't yet done so. Resorting to second-hand accounts? Edit- added bit about post #712, changed 1 sentence for clarity, added hyphen. Fun with edit!

Wow. Nice find, on Al-Jazeera, no less. Though, I don't know how much of that made it on the air.

I thought most GM foods had defects (like susceptibility to a virus) built in that would minimize the "damage" caused by an overgrowth of edible material.

I don't think it is about money. Sadly, if it was legal, it would be taxed. I think the criminalization of marijuana was simply a result of the pressure-group warfare caused by the democratization of the United States. Companies that competed with hemp products lobbied government for special favors, and religious zealots lobbied to enforce their morality. When government is about the "will of 'the people,'" and not about individual rights, stuff like this will happen.

Where and when? Edit- removed sentence that does not pertain to this thread.

In the English language, the masculine form of a word usually assumes the feminine form. In other languages, for instance, French, saying the masculine form of a word has significance. Ayn Rand often used the masculine form of "adult human" (man), when she was referring to any adult human. She was usually very careful with word choice. Can you offer convincing evidence that she implied heroine worship was the essence of masculinity?

So all here (I hope) have agreed that government funding through coercion is wrong. Presumably, most here also agree that the welfare of any form is wrong. Everyone does not seem to agree about where to start cutting these unnecessary government programs. I say reduce programs at the point where it will most damage the moral argument for welfare. In my estimation, the best areas would be medicine, unemployment and social security. When these are cut and we find that people are saving for their own retirement, people without jobs are not starving and people who pay for their own medicine are not dead, a huge blow will be dealt to the welfare mentality. Plus, these programs take up a gigantic portion of the federal budget - far more than NASA's budget. Once the other programs are gone, we can start abolishing government funded science/space projects. In the meanwhile, we can also advocate that the government respect property rights in space. That will be the best incentive for private companies to go to the moon and beyond. For the record, I will still be inspired by any successful space project that is government funded.

Did one of the guys in that video really accuse the Mossad of creating Al-Zarqawi?

I used to try to fall asleep while daydreaming. I don't think it helped me to sleep, but I do think it helped me become a lucid dreamer. Sometimes I have dreams where I realize that I am still asleep. These types of dreams are wonderful, but I digress. When I go to sleep I employ meditation techniques. Counting backward while picturing the numbers, sometimes two sets of numbers. Other times I picture a steel ball orbiting my head, then add more on different orbital paths. After a minute or two, this process makes it easier to quell errant thoughts. Once my mind is relatively calm, I simply focus on not focusing. In other words, I monitor my thoughts and shut down any that try to enter my conscious mind. Its getting late. Good night.

Dagny and Dominique's arousal stemmed from the physical expression of value coming from a powerful being. If the events of the "rape" scene in The Fountainhead happened in real life and were videotaped, there would certainly be a rape conviction. But I have heard convincing interpretations of the passages that explain how it was not rape. I don't see how being acted upon is inherently feminine, and acting is masculine. Personally, I wouldn't want to be the only thing moving in the bedroom. While acting is fun, I want the feeling of being acted upon also. I'd love to be taken by the right woman. What is wrong with that?

You lose the opportunity to act on a principle that furthers your life as a man. By respecting property rights one is respecting the principle that men deserve any value they have acted to create. If a musician has created something of value to you, it is the musician who deserves to be rewarded if you choose to take part in that value. The alleged "prudent" predator is ignoring this principle, and acting on the principle that people do not deserve the values that they have acted to create. He has chosen to delay progress in living as best he can (qua man) for a paltry value, while denying the source of that value. He has also reduced the incentive for musicians to create more of the music that he enjoys. The fact that thousands of college students either don't understand or ignore this principle is an indictment of their lifestyles and their ability to effectively deal with reality.

Perhaps I don't understand the terms. We are using moral in the sense that it involves a choice and knowledge of the implications. But there is a value standard by which we can judge organisms and humans who have not yet come to fully understand morality, and it is the same standard. Maybe my confusion comes from not understanding the difference between ethics and morality. Is morality applied to all life, whereas ethics is a specialized form of morality that is applied only to volitional beings? If that is the case, then I would judge the organisms you listed morally, but not ethically. I would only judge humans ethically when they fully understand morality. At this point, I'm a little confused. Are we talking about the choice of whether or not to live, or the choice to set the focus of your mind for the first time? Regarding the later choice, I'd be willing to wager that a human being has to focus at some level, as a simple fact of its identity. Isn't the choice to focus really the choice of how much to focus, and Isn't the choice to not focus completely impossible short of suicide? Life as the moral standard exists, whether or not it is acknowledged or chosen. The moment life is created, the standard has been imposed. Perhaps one needs to accept a standard before one's choices can be considered on an ethical level? If I am using any terms incorrectly, I'd appreciate it if someone formally defined them in this thread, or linked me to another thread that offers a definition.

Do you really think so? Why? I don't have enough information to judge, but if you look at this report, the US is not the most economically free. She's tied for 9th with Australia and New Zealand.

I don't think that anything living beings do can be "pre-moral." Living beings are by their nature valuing beings. Try this question: Should I or shouldn't I value? This question is even more basic than, "should I live or not?" But words like should and shouldn't presuppose a value standard. You simply cannot answer a question that involves a value judgment without a value standard. It's impossible. The question then becomes, what should the value standard be? And as I said before, no values are possible without life. So, the standard is life. Therefore, the answer to the question of the thread is emphatically, "Yes!" My point is, answering with a "no" to the life question involves a contradiction. It's not an arbitrary choice. -edited for clarity

Most people who have gone through the public school system (which is also most people), have been told that if school were privatized it would be unaffordable and only the very wealthy would be educated. The fact that they haven't questioned the logic of this idea is a testament to the failure of public schooling.

Could you please summarize for us why you (or he) believes it is an error?

It's my understanding that most people who get multiple chinese characters, that also don't speak the language, end up writing nonsense on their bodies.

I've been playing catch up with this thread for quite some time, and while some of the following points have been addressed, they have not all been addressed to my satisfaction. I will begin with my hypothesis regarding sexual desires, address some contextually appropriate terms, compare some different types of sexual acts in relation to morality, and make a conclusion regarding the topic of this thread. Hypothesis: Human sexual desires are the result of value judgments made early in life, often (but not always) before the result of these judgments can be predicted. Terms: The following quotes were taken from _The_Ayn_Rand_Lexicon_, Published by Penguin Group, Copyright 1986. Moral Judgment, pg. 311: Moral Judgment, same page: The passages from which these quotes came were intended to persuade the reader that moral judgments must be made, and to explain on what basis they are to be made -- they explicity rule out making judgments regarding the subconscious mind. Subconscious, pg. 482: In the latest quote, Rand asserts that emotions are evidence of subconscious convictions. But in the quotes regarding moral judgment, she maintains that morality does not apply to the subconscious. It follows that emotions (and desires) are amoral. However, when we say that our specific desire is moral or immoral, what we mean is we desire something that is good or bad, based on a certain standard. Because the desire itself is not a conscious decision, it cannot be properly called moral or immoral. I feel that I have to also explain that, if the desire is a result of conscious convictions, it again is not the desire who's morality can be questioned; it is the conscious convictions that lead to that desire that are open to judgment. Sex, pg. 485 Love, pg. 266 Thought Exercise: To my knowledge, Rand never made an argument regarding the morality or immorality of homosexual acts between two people who share romantic love. I would like to compare the morality and immorality of several types of sexual desires. I will compare acts of heterosexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality. Heterosexuality: The desire to have sex with a consenting adult is amoral. Engaging in sex with a consenting adult is moral when both adults share the same core values and admiration of each other, as well as a sexual desire. Engaging in the act is immoral if the adults do not consent, do not share the same core values and admiration, or lack reciprocated sexual desires. Entertaining fantasies regarding the opposite sex can be moral, provided the fantasies do not replace of the actual pursuit of that value, and provided it does not create or contribute to a psychological pathology that makes it difficult to achieve value. Homosexuality: The desire to have sex with a consenting adult is amoral. Engaging in sex with a consenting adult is moral when both adults share the same core values and admiration of each other, as well as a sexual desire. Engaging in the act is immoral if the adults do not consent, do not share the same core values and admiration, or lack reciprocated sexual desires. Entertaining fantasies regarding the same sex can be moral, provided the fantasies do not replace of the actual pursuit of that value, and provided it does not create or contribute to a psychological pathology that makes it difficult to achieve value. Pedophilia: The desire to have sex with a child is amoral. Engaging in sex with a child can never be consensual. It is an act that is necessarily devoid of the values that make sex worthwhile. I assert that engaging in sexual fantasies that involve children is immoral because there can be no rational value in the act itself, and it can create a pathology that makes the pursuit of rational values more difficult (such as sex with a consenting adult who shares one's values and sexual desire). Bestiality: The desire to have sex with a goat(or any non-human) is amoral. Consent can never be given by the goat, but is irrelevant because the goat has no rights. The recognition of the values that make sex worthwhile can not be present in this type of act, therefore bestiality is immoral. I assert that engaging in sexual fantasies that involve goats(or any non-human) is immoral because there can be no rational value in the act itself, and can create a pathology that makes the pursuit of rational values more difficult (such as sex with a consenting adult who shares one's values and sexual desire). Conclusions: 1) I believe that the roots of sexual desires are the choices and conclusions that lead to values. 2) Because sexual desires are the result of conscious convictions, they can be changed through a process of identification and cognitive integration. 3) The conscious convictions are open to moral scrutiny, the desires are not. To say, "this desire is moral (or immoral)" is to mean, "this desire is for a course of action that is moral (or immoral)." 4) The requirements for romantic love can be properly satisfied both heterosexually and homosexually. -Edit: clarified conclusions.