Evan

Lol. Alright. Sure...we can "assume" that...if you really think it is necessary to "assume" to linguistic equality of synonyms...*laughs.* If you "assume" that the label is correct (as you just had me do), then the act of labeling something by it's true name is NOT a horrible thing, it is necessary and proper assuming that your goal is not evasion through non-precise defintions. It is pretty clear in Objectivist literature the importance of definitions as conceptual/epistomological tools and why playing fast and loose with those tools ends up leading to subjectivism/cognitive chaos. A is A, right? If Kira is a whore/prostitute, then she IS a whore and a prostitute. I don't pretend that words can mean anything we want them to mean. Whore/prostitute does NOT mean "vendor of cookies." You and I both know this. Given this, why do you assume that I think it IS a "horrible" thing for Kira to be labeled a whore? Why do you put normative implications in my mouth that I myself have never made? A better question for you to have asked would have been "DO you think that it is a horrible thing for Kira to have been labeled a prostitute/whore within the context of the novel?" I know I'm being picky about the built in assumptions contained in your question and I hope you can understand why I AM being so picky. Precision is important and muddying the waters with assumptions isn't a good way to start off. Do you see the difference between asking, "Do you think X?" and "Why do you think X?" OF COURSE NOT. Look, prostitution is a business transaction when both parties know what is going on. For men of self-esteem, it is an unnecessary business transaction...one that is never needed for them. When one party doesn't know what is going on, you get Anna Nicole Smith type situations...where a woman is only involved because of money and the degree of manipulation that goes with that. Do I agree with such dishonesty or find it virtuous? No. Here is what I said about how I look at Kira in a wider context: What I'm basically going for here is the fact that I see Kira as an ideal woman that did what she felt was right in order to protect her values. I could NEVER knock her for that. As a man...I imagine myself in Leo's position or Andrei's position and I can't imagine that I would be really forgiving in that situation. If I was Leo and Kira was my girlfriend, I would feel betrayed in the sense that I wasn't consulted regarding an action done on my behalf. I would understand that my health at that point would end up being of greater value to Kira than the relationship itself. After all, in Kira's eyes, the world would have been a bit more dark if Leo had died and it would have hurt her MORE than to have him find out the truth and end their relationship. Did Kira have the right to really hurt Andrei by faking reality (morally prostituting herself out by pretending she reciprocated his feelings? I dunno. What do you think? Do you think that virtue isn't context sensitive, EC ? OF COURSE NOT. I said nothing indicating that I thought the act of prostitution itself was good or bad...let alone good in ALL cases irrespective to contexts. Lol. I would be a pretty damn big idiot if I said, "Yes, I think prostitution should be judged the same (ethically speaking) no matter what the situation/context." Context is made up of facts. When facts differ between situations and create different contexts, the situations cannot be judged the same due to the fact that you are dealing with different FACTS. If you aren't evaluating the "facts" in your moral judgement...you are whim worshiper and a subjectivist. So no. To answer your question....No, I'm NOT A subjectivist.

I never have owned a Nintendo system after the Super-Nintendo. The only systems I have ever owned have been the Game Boy Advance, Super-Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Playstation, Playstation 2, and then the Sony PSP. I missed out on a lot of Zelda . Perhaps I will have to check 'em out when the Revolution comes out. I liked the old school Zelda games from the NES and Super-NES days.

Nobody said "randomly" or not....but she does indeed sell herself. See these threads for my arguments regarding whether or not what Kira does is prositution or not. Link 1 Link 2

I already addressed this once before in this thread and I also addressed it in your other thread once and for all. The positive claim I'm making involves knowledge within the book. You admit yourself that all three main characters call Kira a whore. The word whore is synonym with prostitute, thus I'm not advocating interpretation outside of the text. I agree with your assertion that the onus of proof is on the person making a positive claim. HOWEVER, to discuss issues of proof, you have to have a standard with which to refer. There were multiple issues (some of which you ignored completely and failed to address with counter arguments...while still claiming disagreement despite ignoring the arguments or attempting to answer them) involved. For the sake of clarity, if you won't accept strictly *textual* proof or we end up debating definitions....you need to specify what needs to be proven in YOUR eyes for you to be swayed by reason, logic, etc. If you ask something unreasonable, trust me...someone will call you on it. However, if you demand increasing levels of clarity in unpacking definitions...you must say so. I have to do that, yes. You aren't *obligated* to do it...but if you don't....debates get really disorganized and really tangential really fast because there isn't an accepted standard or even debate over what the standard should be. If you don't have a standard, it is hard to know which arguments have more weight or which ones to prioritize. You can prioritize and weigh arguments without an explicity labeled standard...it is just harder to do and the likelihood of error goes up. You said you were new at formal argumentation (debate) which is the only reason why I suggest that particular m.o.

I already addressed the argument about prostitute and whore in the debate that Steve and I had and it went TOTALLY unaddressed. I feel this argument is already addressed by a counter argument I provided. Here is that argument: Using the word "whore" instead of prostitute has ABSOLUTELY no relevance in the debate. The two words are SYNONYMS. They mean EXACTLY the same thing. The only thing different about them is their intended normative weight.Calling someone promiscuous and unclean MEANS (Semantically) the EXACT same thing as calling them a dirty slut. HOWEVER, there is a difference in word choice only when it comes to conveying that an insult is intended. Normative claims assert that something is good or bad, desirable or undesirable. They have VALUE applications. Descriptive claims do NOT make such assertions, they just state what IS. This is why some words/phrases seem academic, stuffy, boring, sterile, etc though they often have the same descriptive meaning as a more normative term. The purpose of academic writing isn't (at least generally) to convey emotion. It's purpose is primarily epistomological in nature...and that nature is supported by the efficiency of using words that convey descriptive stuff without the normative baggage. On a descriptive level, whore and prostitute mean EXACTLY the same thing. whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr) n. A prostitute. A person considered sexually promiscuous. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. See that? IN THE DEFINITION of whore, they use the word prostitute...I wonder why that is (sarcasm)? So how can it be logically important to use the two words as if they were different in meaningor demand that for the sake of debate that they be separate in their function?. They aren't. If you seriously consider this a substantive issue, answer just ONE question. How can you be a whore WITHOUT being a prostitute? Is it possible to be a prostitute without being a whore? IF so, give me an example of how a woman could be a whore WITHOUT being a prostite. A real life concrete example. Compare the defintions, please. If you cannot prove the relevance in the distinction that you claim is warranted, you MUST concede that logically the concepts and words are synonyms. Because this is the STARTING place for such a debate, you must take into account this argument. In case some further elucidation is required....I offer the following defintion: From M-W: syn·o·nym Pronunciation: 'si-n&-"nim Function: noun Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synOnymon, from neuter of synOnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name -- more at NAME 1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses from Dictionary.com = syn·o·nym n. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language. If anyone TRULY wishes to debate that prostitute and whore are SYNONYMS, go to a thesaurus. If you don't know what that is....here is a definition. the·sau·rus Pronunciation: thi-'sor-&s Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural the·sau·ri /-'sor-"I, -"E/; or the·sau·rus·es /-'sor-&-s&z/ Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, treasure, collection, from Greek thEsauros 1 : TREASURY, STOREHOUSE 2 a : a book of words or of information about a particular field or set of concepts; especially : a book of words and their synonyms b : a list of subject headings or descriptors usually with a cross-reference system for use in the organization of a collection of documents for reference and retrieval - the·sau·ral /-'sor-&l/ adjective I suggest Merriam Webster's Online Thesaurus for this purpose. You can find it at www.refdesk.com. Scroll down and on the left hand side you will see one look dictionary, M-W Dictionary, and M-W Thesaurus. Put the word you want looked up in the little box and click "search." In fact...put the word " If anyone wants to take the thesaurus challenge and find a thesaurus that doesn't list prostitute and whore as synonyms, PLEASE let me know. The reason I'm making such a big stink about synonyms is because synonyms (like whore and purpose) serve the same cognitive functions because they are words that have the same definition! If I said that Kira was angry when she yelled at Andrei and anyone comes forward saying, "Oh no...that isn't true. Ayn Rand never USED the word 'angry' in that book. The word she used in that passage was 'furious.'" should we really take that as serious as a grounds for debate? Are we really debating the significance in difference between being "angry" and "furious?" What is next....debating about the difference in word choice when it comes to "belicose" and "war-like?" Does such debate serve a cognitive or intelligble (or intelligent) function? Here is a quote from Steve on the more general subject of We The Living...he quotes passages from the book: IN STEVE'S OWN POST he admits that Kira, Leo, and Andrei (all of the RELEAVNT parties to the situation) ALL label Kira a whore! Are they all liars? Are they all incapable of indenfying reality or making appropriate defintions? Whore and prostitute are synonyms. Do you think that Ayn Rand intended for Kira, Leo, and Andrei to labele Kira a whore INCRORRECTLY? Do you think that she intended them to be mistaken? I see this debate as not needing to go forward at this point unless someone (Steve included) can make some intelligible argument about how the difference in prostitute and whore is metaphysically significant as a word choice. It is only significant in the force with which it's use is intended to convey...but NOT in a definitional/descriptive realm. I see Steve (or anyone else that accepts Steve's parameters) as needing to answer a couple of questions: 1) Why is the difference between whore/prostitute important AT ALL? 2) Since they are synonyms and Kira, Leo, Andrei use the synonym to describe Kira as a whore....are they simply mistaken, deluded, evasive, stupid, or incapable of making a relatively simple definitional identification? 3) If Kira was evasive or just mind numbingly stupid...how could she be a Rand heroine? I agree with Steve's original assesment that Kira is an even better Rand heroine that Dagny or Dominique. How could he hold that belief if he can't even make the judgement that Kira was smart AND intellectually honest enough to make the RIGHT label and apply it to herself? Do you think Rand intended Kira to make an error of knowledge (just not being smart enough or careful enough to chose the RIGHT word for the situation) or an error of morality (evading the fact that she wasn't "really" a prostitute as Steve claims)? If so...what indicates THAT? Until these questions are answered, I'm bowing out of the debate because unless they are answered, Steve's propositions remain fuzzy and uncear and fail to serve any constructive purpose at this point. Arguments need justification and currently the proposition that "whore and prostitute need to be treated as separate concepts because Ayn Rand picked the option of using one over the other" is woefully unsupported or justified. In retrospect...by looking over the other thread in which this was justified, it isn't at all unclear anymore why the gap between agreement and understanding widened on both ends. Arguments are bridges between understanding. When they go unrefuted or unaddressed...they don't serve constructive purposes anymore and words become more and more like winds pushing people farther and farther from understanding. Debate is like an intellectual jog. If two parties expect to do it well...they must keep up with the other's pace. The more arguments are dropped...the less intellectual benefit is gained to either party. I urge anyone who reads this thread to keep that in mind. -E

Lol. No problem. In a generalized sense, one of the things I think we got stuck on (and maybe I should have pointed this out earlier) is the fact that a lot of arguments are interrelated. If you noticed (earlier) I made a ton of arguments that at some point stopped getting addressed. One thing that would make things more effiencient on both ends that YOU could do...is define an acceptable standard for determining what YOU consider "proof." For example...I find myself asking (after making a sizable number various inter-related arguments...some of which stopped getting addressed), "What would Steve consider necessary to prove that Kira was indeed engaging in an act of prostitution?" It would help to develop substantive approaches to know that. If you hypothetically agree that me proving that Kira was indescriminate is all that is necessary, than we could have focussed exclusively on that part of the debate (which might have been your intention by focussing your responses on that segment of my arguments). If I needed to prove to you that having sex only for the only intention of getting money from a person (whether that person is a victim of manipulation or knowingly making a business transaction) is enough to make someone a prostitute (in the ethical and not legal sense) regardless of the frequency of such sexual acts...then we could have focussed on that area. In fact...in that sense...a woman like Anna Nicole Smith is no different than Kira or any woman that marries (knowing that sex is generally an accepted condition of marriage) exclusively money. In THAT respect, I think it is relatively easy to prove that one doesn't have to be hooking on the streets to be a prostitute. You should take an active role in setting the parameters for what YOU feel is acceptable for debate and keep in mind...you don't necessarily have to select only ONE parameter/condition that needs to be met. I think it is reasonable to say that both conditions (or perhaps even more conditions) need to be met. You seem to be relatively new to the field of argumentation, though that doesn't mean you are necessarily *bad* at it. If my perception of that is correct, I understand that being new can make setting the agenda (so to speak) a daunting or perhaps even difficult task. It helps to shape your questions to keep such an agenda in mind. If I had any advice (as a debater), I would recommend taking a more active role in stating what it is EXACTLY that you are seeking in terms of what constitutes necessary proof. Those standards can be rebuked (if necessary) on logical grounds or accepted and worked with. If someone tells you that your standards are unreasonable and suck...you can consider their arguments and perhaps change the angle/way you are approaching a certain question (or even questions in general).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. After 3-4 minutes I have gotten myself up to 17 seconds...though like Diana I normally kick the pail at 11 seconds . The game's movement follows a pattern that you can learn to cope with. At around 17 seconds, the game gets distinctly *faster* though, so it seems to get a bit tougher there.

That doesn't seem like a bad idea. My replies have been kinda long, so I'm sure that has deterred *some* from taking any particular position. If we kinda get "stuck in the mud" there is no reason why you can't or shouldn't open the topic up again for more broader discussion. Besides, it interests me what others will say. -E

I'm talking fundamentals here:) Descriminating or indescriminating is a matter of DEGREE. I didn't say that Kira had absolutely NO standards. As I said earlier, I don't think she would have had sex with a donkey or a dead person to get money for Leo. The presence of standards that exclude some possibilities and include others is what makes a person descriminate or indescriminate. However if the presence of only ONE standard is all anyone needs to be descriminating, then damn neary everyone from porn stars to Objectivists are descriminate. Hell..NO prostitute could be accused of being indescriminate...because even PROSTITUTES have their limits. Some prositutes won't have anal sex. Some won't swallow. Some won't do threesomes. Are they descriminating in their sexual choice? I would argue that most prostitutes wouldn't agree to a client that asked them to slit their wrists and give oral sex at the same time...even if the amount of money involved was pretty significant. That is a standard, is it not? Can you say that because of that fact that a prostitute is indescriminate? Of course not. I'm saying that the "indescriminate" part of the defintion for promiscuous is relative term. Some prostitutes are more descriminating than others. Some expensive call girls are really descriminating and have enough money (or only prostitute themselves out rarely) to only make a business transaction among a small class of men (the rich, famous, well endowed...lol...etc). Some prosittutes are more descriminating that REGULAR people. Because " indescriminate" is a matter of degree....prostitutes are labeled indescriminate either on the basis of the numbers of people they have sex with relative to the general "more picky" population (that is a generalization, I admit...but a fairly intuitive and good one) or the criteria and number of criteria they use when deciding between whether or not they will have sex with someone. A slut (definitionally speaking) is indescriminate in her sexual choices, however she isn't necessarily a prostitute. Kira was NOT a slut, but she sold her body for money. Thus, I'm not saying she was indescriminate in the NUMBER of people she had sex with, but the criteria (and number of criteria) she used when determing whether or not she would have sex with Andrei or not. The only thing relevant to her was money. It says To make a clear distinction between things, you need a standard with which to judge. If you aren't judging based on fundamentals, what are you judging based on and how can you be "clear" in your distinction? If you are judging based on arbitrary standards, are you really descriminating? If I select my lover based on eye color, what kind of sound system they have, the color their underwear, and what brand of shoes they wear....that is a LOT of descriminating. However, it isn't descriminate on a romantic level. It is descriminate on a MATERIAL level. See the difference? Look at these defintions again. 3prostitute Function: noun 1 a : a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money : WHORE b : a male who engages in sexual and especially homosexual practices for money 2 : a person (as a writer or painter) who deliberately debases his or her talents (as for money) pro·mis·cu·ous Pronunciation: pr&-'mis-ky&-w&s Function: adjective Etymology: Latin promiscuus, from pro- forth + miscEre to mix -- more at PRO-, MIX 1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things 2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : INDISCRIMINATE <education... cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas -- Norman Cousins> 3 : not restricted to one sexual partner We are debating whether or not Kira had sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting money (we agree she did) and whether or not she was "promiscuous" in that regard. Promiscuous says "not restricted to one sexual parner" and "not restricted to oen class or person : indescriminate." The reason why the "part three" of that defintion has "not restricted tone one sexual partner" is because the NUMBER of your sexual partners is a CLASS. "Amount" (as a concept) is a quantifying CLASS. You can group things based on their amount. The way you descriminate (or restrict yourself to classes) is based on adherence to fundamental characteristics unique to that class. In the case of sexual choice, you are descriminate or not based on whether or not you adhere to standards that let you objectively separate lovers. If you are separating lovers out based on material possessions, you are NOT a descriminating lover no matter how many material restrictions you place on the class because you can only say that the standards are valid if they apply to the subject being discussed. It is in NO way philosophically relevant to choose a lover based on how many stereos and television sets they have. If those are the standards that let you be "descriminate" then they are based on the enshrinement of arbitrary whim. If we aren't debating whether or not Kira was restricted to one class, person, or sort based on FUNDAMENTAL characteristics unique to that class...what are we discussing? When it says that discriminating is making a clear distinction or distingushing...aren't there varying levels of degrees of clarity? Isn't clarity (or vaugeness) based on the number of things, fundamentals, values, that you are taking into consideration when judging between two options? You can be MORE or LESS clear when you distinguish between categories based on the number of standards you use (fudamentals). It is the difference between saying something is a "Fruit" (sort of generalized) and saying something is an "apple" more distinct. The apple is definitely a fruit, but it has it's own qualifiers that make it an apple as opposed to a banna. The number of standards/distinguishing characteristics needed to DESCRIMINATE between something that is simply a fruit and something that is an apple are greater when it comes to determining what an apple is. When determining whether or not Kira is a prostitute or not we are arguing whether or not she was indescriminate in her choice of lovers. We are arguing whether or not she made clear distinctions between her options. I'm saying she was UNLCEAR beacause she used relatively few standards in her choice to have sex with Andrei. In fact, the standards she DID use were not VALUABLE standards when it comes to determining whether or not to sleep with someone. They were not fundamental. On a FUNDAMENTAL level, Kira was indescriminate. She wasn't really "picky." She didn't make a "Clear distinction" based on a number of exacting standards *THAT APPLY* to the subject that she was evaluating (sexual choices). Monetary wealth/ financial security is ONE standard. Is it the most philosophically relevant? Probably not. HOWEVER regardless of that fact...a person who takes more important standards into account can AUTOMATICALLY be said to be the more discriminating lover. This is extremely simple mathematics. Person A judges between potential lovers based on: wealth, personality, sense of life, being in love (as a response to philosophical values). That is a grand total of THREE standards to use when judging between whether or not you have sex with someone. Person B judges based on wealth. I'm not arguing that wealth is a bad or functionally useless standard...but it is ONE standard. Person A is definitely more descriminating. Their choices are more "clear" more "distinct" and are more prejudicial. There are MORE "preference" calculations being made . Those words I quoted are all in your defintion. Do you now see where I'm going with this? Even by your own defintion of "descriminate" you cannot *logically* say that person A is NOT indescriminate when compared to person B. Kira is person B. We recognize that there are a LOT of important variables that you take into account when choosing a lover because the purpose of choosing a sexual lover is to further romantic and sexual goals. Kira didn't have those goals in mind, so she evaluated very few criteria (the only one she used was wealth) when making a sexual choice. Thus she can be said to be indescriminate in her sexual choice. Clarify. If you aren't descriminating (choosing between alternatives) based on ABSOLUTE standards...what are you chosing based on? Indescriminate whim? Whatever pops into your head? Each standard a person judges by is an absolute standard as you use it EVERY time when judging between people. If you find it relative to separate out potential lovers based on their wealth, good looks, and cologne...you don't selectively apply those standards to some people and not all. You use each one of those standards ABSOLUTELY or else your standard serves no function. If you look at Person A and say, "He is rich, handsome, and wears a nice cologne" (those things are important to you as standards) you don't look at person A and only take into account ONLY their looks and cologne. If you sort of pick and choose when to take wealth into consideration based on conditional elements (maybe the question of wealth is only important if the person is ALREADY good looking and smelling nice), then you can isolate wealth as a NON-fundamental standard. Thus, we CAN say what standards are important or not. We can determine what absolute standards Kira used to evaluate alternatives. She used wealthas the only standard (which is why she approached Leo's relatives as well) that she based her decisions to approach people on because her goal was such that it was the only standard that was important. It isn''t important to love someone if your only goal is to borrow money off of them. Kira's goals were not SEXUAL or ROMANTIC in nature...so in the choice of a SEXUAL encounter...she was INDESCRIMINATE in her choice because she didn't descriminate between sexual choice based on factors that are objectively important when taking into account choices between lovers (you admit that love is one of these criteria). Compared to a woman that DOES take these factors into account, like Dagny Taggert...she is indescriminate. I urge you to address the meat of this post and my last one.

When you descriminate (i.e = weigh or differentiate between possibile alternatives), you do so based on a standard. If I am using my faculties of descrimination (differentiation) to tell you what makes Objectivism better than Communism, I must appeal to a standard that gives my audience a way to evaluate the arguments. If I say, "Objectivism is better than Communism because it better promotes Justice which is defined as X, Y, and Z" then the standard of "justice" becomes the criteria for descriminating and separating the two philosophies.Same thing with people. If we are talking about descriminating on the level of physical attractiveness, I could say that a woman that is in shape is better looking than a morbidly obese one because of her weight (in this case weight acts as the standard or criteria). When you say: all you are saying here is that she descriminated in terms of who she approached based on whether or not they would realistically be able to give her money or not. In the We the Living example, MONEY is the standard...but it is the ONLY standard that is important to Kira. If someone's pocket book is the ONLY relevant factor that you take into account when you have sex with someone, you do NOT have discriminating taste overall. You have descriminating taste when it comes to their pocketbook (which is one of a large number of factors that make up a human being). What about other factors like a person's personal philosophy, their looks, their sense of life, their sense of humor, etc? What about the fact of being in love with someone? Should those facts not go into the calculus that one uses to descriminate between lovers? I love my girlfriend for a whole lot of reasons...not just because she is loaded. I see my girlfriend as beating out other women on a LOT of different playing fields...thus I have a GREATER discriminating taste because more variables went into the decision making process. I did *more* discriminating.Thus, someone that *only* takes into account how wealthy a person is is by definition *less* descriminating...perhaps we can agree that they are indescriminate in comparison? Kira's stated goal was to get money for Leo's health. We agree on that, right? Thus, in terms of achieving her goal...the ONLY relevant factor Kira took into consideration was choosing a person to get that money from was whether or not they had the money to give. It wouldn't have made sense if Kira was hypothetically making a list of people to beg from and she put someone she KNEW was homeless and destitute on the list. Kira also approached Leo's German relatives (you make mention of it in your other post) despite the fact that the probably had a pretty good idea that they wouldn't be supportive of the fact that they were unwed. We can see that she didn't discriminate when it came to who she asked based on IMPORTANT things like philosophical agreement, friendly relations, etc. She didn't approach Andrei because they were friends. If THAT was acting as her standard...she would have approached Andrei FIRST instead of Leo's unfriendly relatives. You don't honestly believe that Kira was in love with Andrei or sexually lusted after him do you? If not, then you have to acknowledge that the only relevant factor Kira took into consideration when choosing who to approach for money was the fact that they HAD money. I'm saying that the only reason why she had sex with Andrei and sought him out instead of prostituting herself AS A STREETWALKER was because it was an easier to have sex with an essentially good (but screwed up person) like Andrei than deal with some one that was *worse.*. In that sense, she was choosing between the greater of two lessers...which means that she pretty much threw all relevant criteria out the window in the areas of romantic and sexual love because she wasn't responding out of genuine feelings of love (which in turn should have been based on philosophical harmony) which is DEFINITELY a relevant factor when it comes to evaluating who you ought to sleep with and why. When you ASK yourself the question, "What woman should I have sex with and why?" you are asking yourself what standards you descriminate with...in essence...what standards you use to separate the good women from the bad women. What standards to YOU find important when it comes to who you feel you would like to ideally sleep with? What do you think is the criteria (standard) that we should use for determining who is descriminate or indescriminate in their choice of sexual lovers? I think we should take a wide variety of variables into our decision making process and calculus. The person who takes into account the most philosophically relevant variables (shoe color isn't philosophically relevant...lol) should definitely be considered to be more descriminate in their choices. Descriminate just basically means choosy.Someone who is really choosy isn't generally choosy on one front. If you and I are both restaurant critics that evaluate restaurants and you think that the elements that make a good meal are spicyness, presentation, friendliness of the waiting staff, and the restaurant's view...you have VERY descriminating tastes. If I think that spicyness is all that matters and don't care whether or not the restaurant is located amidst a disaster zone, I take FEWER criteria into account when evaluating restaurants. Thus, I'm LESS descriminating. You are going to be MORE likely to have higher standards of what you accept as "quality restaurants." A five star rating for you could mean a really classy restaurant with great food, great atmosphere, and great service wheras a five star rating in MY book could be a kibab stand in Beiruit that serves up great tasting kibabs when it isn't being shelled and the waiters aren't getting drunk behind the building. I think we can safely say that I'm indescriminate in my evaluations when compared to your highly descriminating taste. Compared to the OBJECTIVIST standard of romantic and sexual love, Kira is TOTALLY indescriminate in choosing Andrei as a lover because it isn't as a response to love, philosophical values, or anything that Objectivists deem relevant. By Ayn Rand's OWN standards, Kira is indescriminate. She has less exacting standards for who she sleeps with than say...Dagny Taggart or 'Frisco. Promiscuous in the "not restricted to one partner" sense and indescriminate in the ways that I just described above. Compared to a rational, valuing, Objectivist person...Kira was big time indescriminate. Lol.I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. I think Ayn Rand chose to use the term whore to show just how passionate and violently the characters reacted to what Kira did. Leo was really suprised and upset by it. Andrei was crushed. Kira felt self loathing for the fact that it was the only way she could get money to save a man that shouldn't have needed saving in the first place but did because of the fact that the USSR sucked ass. Prostitute and whore are synonyms in reality and in a dictionary sense. They are also synonyms in the novel. The only difference between the words is essentially in the fact that the word "whore" conveys a lot more depth of feeling and reaction as it is a much more incindiary word.Calling someone a prostitute isn't the same as calling them a whore in terms of the emotional impact it is supposed to have. "Whore" is a perjorative and NORMATIVE syonym for the sterile and technical word "prostitute." They mean the same thing. Whore, prostitute, lady of the night, hoe, and hooker all MEAN the same thing. Would you have this confusion if Ayn Rand would have inserted one of the alternatives I just listed into the text of the novel? Do you seriously believe there is a definitional difference between a hooker and a whore? How about hoe and prostitute? I think you are giving far too much weight to evaluating the importance of word choice when the word choice was among syonyms. I think the answer to why Ayn Rand decided to have her characters say "whore" instead of "prostitute" was really simple: the word "Whore" is supposed to be a more poweful word because it conveys hurt, pain, anguish, anger, etc. It conveys emotion, insult, and normative weight whereas prostitute is clinical, technical, etc. It is like the difference between calling someone (or yourself) an indescriminate teller of falsehoods versus calling them (or yourself) a lying piece of shit. If you want another example it is like calling a woman unclean and promiscuous versus calling her a filthy slut. Can you differentiate between the two examples and what purposes/intententions the different word choices convey? -Evan

Lol. Looks like I need a definition for indescriminate. in·dis·crim·i·nate Pronunciation: "in-dis-'krim-n&t, -'kri-m&- Function: adjective 1 a : not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment <indiscriminate reading habits> <indiscriminate mass destruction> b : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM <indiscriminate application of a law> 2 a : PROMISCUOUS, UNRESTRAINED <indiscriminate sexual behavior> b : HETEROGENEOUS, MOTLEY <an indiscriminate collection> - in·dis·crim·i·nate·ly adverb - in·dis·crim·i·nate·ness noun In this case and context that we applying the defintion to (prostitution) the "careful distinction" caveat in the defintion means that the prositute doesn't descriminate when it comes to WHO they are having sex or the other standards. Would Kira have had sex with a fat balding Communist for the purpose of getting money? Would she have had sex with a male model? Kira would definitely have had a preference for an attractive person over an ugly one, Sure. Hower, such descriminating taste was not necessary or important for Kira. I think it is a safe bet that had the fat balding Communist been the only guy offering money for Leo's treatment, she would have still slept with him. Standards like sexual attraction, philosophical outlook, real valuing, etc were NOT the primary concern, nor did Andrei meet Kira's *real* standards. Kira's standards were unimportant because the GOAL of the sex wasn't a response to values nor was it for the purpose of building a lasting romantic relationship. In this sense, Kira WAS indescriminate. Having descriminating taste means that you have standards with which to descriminate with. In the historical sense, racial descrimination happened when people set an arbitrary standard (race) and used it do distinguish/discern perceived value in people. It is descriminating taste that lets you say with certainty that filet mingon has a qualitative superiority to a McDonald's cheesburger or vice versa. Discriminating taste is what lets us separate concretes, group them, and integrate them into a philosophical categories. In the gem world, a jewler needs to have a discriminating eye. He has to be able to differentiate quality from crap...in essence fulfilling the definitional requirements of "discriminate" by being able to discern one gem's distinguishing qualities from another. Kira was indescriminate in her choice to have sex with Andrei. Due to the fact that she was only sleeping with him for money, WHO she slept with was not as important when it came to achieving her monetary ends as the fact that they would be able to give her enough money to save Leo. At best, it was only marginally important. I think Kira saw it is as easier to have sex with Andrei (who was a good person, but really misguided philosophically) than some evil bastard like Victor. In that sense, her descrimination was only extremely marginal. When I say Kira was only marginally descriminate in her choice of lovers I don't mean it hat she indescriminate in the sense that she had (or would have had) sex with 20 people or that she had absolutely NO standards. I'm not sure Kira would have had sex with a donkey or with a retarded person for the purpose of getting money for Leo....but I'm also not sure how important that degree of distinction is to the overall picture though. After all, if we can only judge whether or not someone is 'indescriminate" in their choice of lovers by looking at a numerical value of how many people they have slept with...then what is the brightline for that? Dagny had sex with 3 different people in the course of Atlas Shrugged, yet she had EXTREMELY discriminating taste whereas Kira sleeping with Leo was an act of marginally descriminate prostitution and not love. I think the defintion that I used includes the word "especially" because money is the most common form of trade and prostitution is a business transaction. If some dude offers my girlfriend a new computer for oral sex, that is STILL prostitution despite the fact that he isn't offering legal tender currency.Make sense? . It is my pleasure. I find your desire for precision and clarity really really valuable. I think it is something that makes Objectivists so enjoyable to be around. You aren't willing to accept less than 100% certainty or clarity. If there is some ground that we have yet to explore and it raises a question due to it being part of the integrated whole...then such a question MUST be brought out into the open. Such discussion is valuable to both parties because it forces both parties to attempt to be as precise as possible and indentify their terms. It makes me be exact and explain why I believe I'm right considering all of your objections or questions (which haven't been arbitrary or unintelligent AT ALL). Personally, I wouldn't back down from questioning unless all corrolary questions/arguments were resolved in my mind. After all, it is in YOUR mind that YOUR learning and personal growth takes place. Nobody else can learn for you and you can only learn at your own best pace. I see learning as valuable and achievable for both parties (mutual trade for mutual benefit), so I'm happy to discuss this issue as long as needed.

JMeganSnow: I agree 100% that it is an absolutely brilliant film that is really worth watching. Finally Hollywood depicts someone that isn't born into wealth as volitional and capable of fighting for value...not an inherent victim. I think that is probably why I loved the film so much. John Galt wasn't born into money, neither was Hillary Swank's character. That didn't stop the fire and steel in her spirit. WHAT A HEROINE!!! WOW. I was so impressed with her, Morgan Freeman, and Clint Eastwood on this movie.

eep...I can't edit my post anymore, but I would like to add that when I say : I meant that I agree with the fact that a high burden of proof (relying on objective facts, not speculation) is necessary for a legal system to be objective. Such important facts as motive, etc DO need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone and that is as it should be. That is what I was intitially going for. I kind of merged sentences and forgot to edit out the resulting vagueness as to what I was initially referring to (it was clear in my first draft...lol). -Evan

Lets go back to definitions here: Main Entry: 3prostitute Function: noun 1 a : a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money : WHORE b : a male who engages in sexual and especially homosexual practices for money 2 : a person (as a writer or painter) who deliberately debases his or her talents (as for money) With that definition, we need to know what promiscuous means: Main Entry: pro·mis·cu·ous Pronunciation: pr&-'mis-ky&-w&s Function: adjective Etymology: Latin promiscuus, from pro- forth + miscEre to mix -- more at PRO-, MIX 1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things 2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : INDISCRIMINATE <education... cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas -- Norman Cousins> 3 : not restricted to one sexual partner So to translate that all into one easy to understand defintion: A prostitute is a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money (the word indicates "for the purpose of obtaining" and makes no comment on if both parties understand the motives/intentions of the prostitute) in an indescriminate manner. Such a prostitute don't restrict themselves to one person or class (like the constrains that normally bind in a romantic relationship), nor are they restricted to one sexual partner. She isn't a prostitute in a career sense. She doesn't do the act of prostitution frequently, but I don't think that is the issue of whether or not her manipulation was serving the exact same function as prostitution. 1) The definitions I have provided make no mention of a buyer's knowledge. I think my definitions are pretty reasonable, but if you (or anyone else) wants to offer a more precise counter definition or explain why my defintions are bad, biased, or messed up in any way...I would more than welcome that debate. 2)In the "legal" sense, you are correct about prostitution. However, I'm not debating legal technicalities here . For the purpose of debating a literary/linguistic technicality, I offer the argument that legal technicality is unimportant. The legal burden of proving that a customer *knowingly* offers money to a woman that consensually offers sexual services exists due to the needs for objective legality. You could almost never prove a woman's motive in the case of prostitution that exists outside of the manipulated's knowledge. She might be using you for cash and have *absolutely* no interest in you (think Anna Nicole Smith), but how do you objectively prove that in a court of law unless the woman in question turns herself in or confesses? The objective requirements for such a courtroom are high and necessarily so. It would also be hard to prove or disprove the man's knowledge of the affairs. After all, historically speaking...many mom's have whored their daughters out through arranged marriages to rich guys that the daughters have absolutely no love/interest for. People definitely cohabit and use the legal protection of marriage (and the tax benefits that go with it) only for the purpose of splitting costs of living and incurring financial benefits. That fact is almost never tried in court, nor would it be easy to really prove in court. In fact, I agree with the fact that they need to be present....though I disagree that it is within the state's objective/moral parameters to police/sanction marriage to begin with (or prostitution for that matter...as it IS a business transaction ). For the purpose of this discussion however, we (the audience) are given the full facts of reality. We have 100% objective evidence to the full picture because they are given by Miss Rand in the form of the plot and its details. Here is how I see it.... In the case of *overt* prostitution, you have TWO things going on. -A man knowingly soliciting a woman by offering her money for sexual services -A woman knowingly offering sex in exchange for payment or accepting a man's offer for payment in exchange for sex. If you really want to get legally technical, those two things are two separate crimes. One is called "solciting the services of a prostitute" and the other is "prostitution." Even the law draws a distinction. It is how they nab guys on soliciting charges in undercover sting operations. The female cops that bust the guys are NOT real prostitutes...lol.

Here are some Terry Fox statue links: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/5/52/Terry_fox.jpg http://users.andara.com/~shebear/Terry_Fox.jpg http://www.oshima.ca/inuvik/images/terry_fox_s.jpg http://www.artbabych.com/Statues/page/image29.html http://www.thunderbay.ca/media/hi_res/terry_fox_hi.jpg There are definitely multiple statues. One of them is in some place called Thunder Bay.

When you get a chance, hit me with a quote where any of them refer to the act as whore if you would. Second of all, whore is a synonym for prostitute. It is used more in a vulgar/perjorative sense than a technical sense, but it is still a synonym. In fact, here is the definition of "whore" from www.refdesk.com (Merriam Webster's Online): Main Entry: 1whore Pronunciation: 'hOr, 'hor, 'hur Function: noun Etymology: Middle English hore, from Old English hOre; akin to Old Norse hOra whore, hOrr adulterer, Latin carus dear -- more at CHARITY 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person and from dictionary.com (not my favorite online dictionary...but it works in this case ) : whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr) n. A prostitute. A person considered sexually promiscuous. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations. To compromise one's principles for personal gain.

ha ha. Good memory .

In the 35th anniversary edition (paperback) it says : "Some notes on the above: Rearden's sister, Stacy was a minor character later cut from the novel. "Francisco" was spelled "Francesco" in these early years, while Danneskjold's first name was Ivar, presumably after Ivan Kreuger, the Swedish "match king," who was the real-life model of Bjorn Faulkner in Night of January 16th. Father Amadeus was Taggart's priest, to whom he confessed his sins. The priest was supposed to be a positive character honestly devoted to the good but practicing consistently the morality of mercy. Miss Rand dropped him, she told me, when she found that it was impossible to make such a character convincing." (page 6) For all intents and purposes, I agree with what you are saying. Someone cannot *truly* be acting on behalf of *objective* good if they are practicing the morality of mercy. That is why such a character could never really be convincing as a "good" character...but at best could be portrayed as "sincere" in motive. Such a character would indeed muddy the waters. The only reason why I quoted my edition is because I'm betting that Ranil (the artist formerly known as Concerto of Atlantis...lol) has the same edition as myself. Thus, he wasn't having reading comprehension issues or memory issues ...but rather "edition" issues. I believe precision is important, and so I acted accordingly. I'm not trying to muddy the waters here.

I don't mean in the Genghis Khan way...lol. I'm not saying I conquered my woman through force or anything silly. The term"conquer" in this context is used more to indicate the sort of tension and clash during courtship. Think of John Galt. He fought for and won Dagny's heart by his actions. He did it for himself and wouldn't have fought for her had she been less. The image of her and what she meant to him was part of what kept him going in the hard times. When I say, "conquered" I essentially mean "won." When I say, "Won" I don't mean that I got my girlfriend through trickery or a game of poker eitherl(though that would be a pretty damn good haul if I do say so myself). Do you kinda see what I mean here? When I say "conquered" I mean "beat out other competitors (or potential competitors) by demonstrating objective value." I don't mean that my armies went forth and pillaged, plundered, and salted the earth of my girl's village in order to destroy her will so she would capitulate...lol. As for your novel examples: 1) Let me make this more clear. I'm not suggesting that Andrei gives her money because *he* sees it as paying for her sex. Ever value that is traded (romantic or not) is paid for by someone (economically speaking). In romantic realationships, the currency is love. In prostitution, the currency is dollars and cents. Andrei thinks he paid for the sex with love and got the sex because of reciprocated love. He doesn't see the transaction as payment for sex because he has been manipulated by Kira (as you have already said). All relationships operate by the trader principle : mutual values are exchanged and sustained for the purpose of a person's emotional self interest. I'm not with my girlfriend out of "charity" but because I seek and receive value interactions. Likewise, she isn't with me because she feels sorry for me (what an insult that would be!) but instead because she *values* me. Andrei and Kira operate with the same principles...and in fact...prostitution is just a business form of what goes on in relationships *already.* The big difference in terms of prostitution are the values exchanged. With prostitution, physical stimulation and temporary companionship with an anonymous woman are seen as values by the male and fast/easy monetary gains are seen as valuable by the prostitute...whereas in * sustained relationships* the values exhanged aren't just physical stimulation and cash money. Does that sort of make sense? I'm not saying that Andrei went to Kira and was like, "Can I have sex with you? I will pay you 500 rubles." Andrei thought they were exchanging values for values emotionally. He *correctly* identified the fact that romantic love has to be based on reactions to personality and values (which are in turn shaped by the explicit philosophy that one endorses). He didn't expect Kira to love him because of the philosophy he endorsed and as a corollary...he didn't expect her to want him BECAUSE of that fact (as you correctly identified). She deceives him on these points, in essence faking reality and leaving Andrei with the perception that he was valued romantically. He was in essence, duped. So yes...I AGREE with the fact that Andrei gives Kira money for "other reasons" and not as an exchange for sex. However, my argument is that this fact is UTTERLY irrelevant to the question of whether or not Kira prostitutes herself or not and I will explain why later in this post. Andrei thought Kira was cool with giving him sex because she reciprocated romantic feelings for him that were (in his eyes) the basis for sexual attraction. He was honest in his feelings and Kira knew this. She also used it to her own advantage in terms of manipulating things. She knew the logical connections he would make in his mind. She also knew that because he loved her and identified what he saw as a burgeoning relationship that there was no way in hell he was going to let her or her family members starve if he could help it. After all...if I was well off and my girlfriend was dirt poor and she told me that she needed a small amount of money (small in my eyes) to keep her starving family alive, I wouldn't think twice about helping her out. I would trust her judgment due to my own ego. I would say to myself, "Evan...she found value in you, so if she is asking for money to keep her family alive, odds are they aren't like Hank Rearden's family of bums." If they turned out to be bums, I would start questioning my girlfriend's ability to judge objective values rationally and act accordingly . Keeping that in mind, I would also know that she would have the same information as I do and she would probably find it weird if I wasn't the least bit concerned or receptive to addressing her wants/concerns/needs.If she approached me about her starving family and I didn't care, wouldn't that be sort of weird? If she values her vamily and their starvation/loss would damage her emotional health/well being then don't most boyfriends naturally have a concern in promoting their lover's well being (so long as it isn't in conflict with their own)?Sure they do. If it was a small amount of money that wouldn't place me in financial jeopardy or debt, then what reason would I have for not helping her out? Given this basic psychology, Kira pretty much expected Andrei to be receptive. Would she have had casual sex with him if she didn't think there were REALLY great odds of him coughing up money due to his peception of a romantic relationship? Hell no she wouldn't have. Kira wasn't into casual sex with strangers as a mindless physical indulgence like eating dessert. She had sex with him because she knew she could manipulate him into coughing up dough based on misperceptions that Andrei had due to her misrepresenting her intentions. Begging would have been more honest. *Kira* knows exactly what she is doing and she makes the choice to sell her sexual services for the purpose of getting money to prevent Leo from dying. It is why she "hopes it would be quick" and thinks of Maria Petronova. 2) I'm not suggesting that Kira tried prostitution first as an easy way out. I know she tried pretty much every method outside of Andrei. However,she had sex with a guy for the indirect purpose of achieving a monetary end. The real issue we are dancing around here is whether or not you can be a prostitute if your client is unaware about the transaction taking place. I'm arguing that for ethical and practical purposes, you CAN be such a prostitute. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario (complete with cheesy and unrealistic dialogue) to illustrate this: Girl A and Guy B are at a bar and they have known each other for a while. Girl A hates the anarchist philosophy and Guy B is an anarchist....yet they are friends. Girl A to Guy B = "Hey there handsome. How about going back to my place for a little fun? Guy B = "Wait a minute. I thought you hated anarchist philosophy? How can you want to have sex with me? How can you be into someone that you are philosophically opposed to? I thought you were unable and unwilling to have sex with me for that reason??? I really have feelings for you, Girl A and have been trying to prevent myself from attempting to get something out of my reach. Girl A = Nope. I AM willing to have sex with you. Guy B = Score! Let's make this happen! *sex happens* Girl A = Uh....*shifty eyes*. I'm a huge supporter of the World Wildlife Fund (those pandas are so damn cute!). Got any cash? Guy B = Erhm....sure. *hands the girl cash as she hops off the bed, puts on clothes, and heads out the door* *next scene* Girl A repeats the same basic scene with Guy C. Can that girl be prostituting herself for the world life fund regardless of whether or not the guys understand what her motives are? Sure she can. The guys might THINK the girl is having sex with them because of their dashing good looks, moral philosophy, penis size, or bank account. The guy's perceptions are sort of irrelevant though. A is A, right? "A"in this case is the fact that Kira is having sex with Andrei because she knows that by staying around him, he will give her money . and the only way to stay around him is to give him sex. Thus, she has sex for the purpose of staying around him and NOT because she wants to stay around him for his dashing good looks or because she is deeply in love with him.I guess what I'm going for here is that the cause of WHY someone is that the motives (cause), duration, and male perception are irrelevant to labeling someone a prostitute.We can definitely say that the girl in my little 1 act play is having sex for money so she can save the pandas (her value). Regardless of if she has sex for money with one guy or 12 guys, she is selling her body for pandas.It doesn't MATTER that the dude was duped. That doesn't change the full context and reality of the situation. The WOMAN knows what she is doing...and for all intents and purposes, is the only one that matters in this situation. After all, it doesn't matter if Guy B goes up on Jerry Springer and explictly says, "You're a dirty tramp You only had sex with me for money so you could save the pandas!" A rose by any other name smells as sweet and is still a rose, right? Whether or not both parties identify the prostitution for what it really is is irrelevant.What distinguishes prostitution from an act of love are the REAL-not professed-motives of both parties and the fact that what is traded in an act of love isn't only about dollars and cents.The woman has the full context and knows what her own motives are (at least in this case). Andrei was lied to, but Kira wasn't. Kira knew exactly what was going on. In her own mind (the only one that matters) how could she be anything but a prostitute? (regardless of what Andrei knew or didn't know). 3)As far as Leo, yes he knew of Andrei's existence as a *friend* of Kira's, but nothing more. He wasn't prohibitive like, "You can't see that guy." Honestly,he was either careless or else he just thought that Kira was morally above having sex with another man in the confines of a relationship. Neither Andrei nor Leo know about each other until near the end of the novel. Since *he* was unaware of the full context, it cannot be said that he condoned what was going on. 4) Andrei intially gave money to Kira because he noticed she was starving. He labeled Kira and her well being as a value...and acted accordingly (which is partially why Kira was smart enough to go to Andrei in the first place). The fact that Andrei didn't perceive that his money was all Kira really cared about is pretty much irrelevant here. It is also irrelevant that initially Kira didn't sleep with Andrei for money or sleep with him at all. I'm not referring to their early friendship when I accuse her of prostitution. -Evan

Thanks. I appreciate the praise. In a lot of cases I could use better word economy and I slap myself mentally every time I put a post out and realize later that I could have said what I said in 45 words with 2 sentences...lol. With posts like these though, I often just type as I think...which usually isn't scattered, but it often ends up having a sort of repetitious quality at times or gets a bit choppy. The repetition isn't because I'm dull witted, but I think like a brainstorm or a neural net...everything is connected. Sometimes I think of a point halfway through a post that is an offshoot of an original argument and end up rehashing the original argument as a way of both organzing and staying clear. If I'm going to be writing a lot, I generally put my post in a microsoft word document and spell/grammar check what I write as well as asking myself if I could say things more concisely. Ideally I'm always shooting for good writing. A lot of times I kinda fall short of that ideal. Language is for communication...and if I communicated the *right* idea, that is really my main goal. The unfortunate curse I face is that I type at 75+ words per minute and I can read really fast. To me it is no big deal to write a huge monster post or read a jumbo sized post. Unfortunately...the same isn't the case for everyone and occasionally I get nagged at for making posts the size of "Paradise Lost". lol. Ah well. Word economy is something I'm always striving for. If you weren't bugged by my post, then I guess I haven't messed up too badly...lol. -Evan

Sure. I'm not debating whether or not Kira valued Leo or not. I'm not debating whether or not she *loved* Leo or not. I'm not even debating whether or not her actions were in accordance with that. I guess I'm saying that it is a less than ideal action that would hurt emotionally due to the fact that I take GREAT personal pride in having conquered a beautiful Objectivist woman. I'm proud of the fact that she is my girl and I'm her man by mutual choice. I'm also proud of the exclusivity of our relationship. Honestly? I would be horribly jealous. I wouldn't be jealous of a relationship or perceived relationship as Kira didn't *love* Andrei.I would be jealous of the fact that the unearned would go into the hands of the undeserving. I understand that the value wouldn't be mutual on an emotional level. I wouldn't want my girlfriend to be getting physical pleasure from another dude or GIVING physical pleasure to another dude, though. I don't think that really makes me so strange, does it? I understand she did a business transaction for the purpose of love. However, some things shouldn't be sold...and if they are, they should at least be discussed among the partners. I think part of what bothered me was the fact that Kira did what she did without talking to Leo at all. I mean...doesn't he have the right (considering he was pretty much her common law husband) to say, "You know...I don't WANT you to whore yourself out in MY name?" I see each individual in relationships as being sovereign and operating under the trader principle. It is in the best interest of both to be honest and communicate openly. Each person sets their own terms and if they aren't acceptable, either party is free to leave and seek value elsewhere. I think Leo had a right to know where the money came from that was saving his life. Kira might have been fine with her decision and it WAS her decision (I'm not saying it wasn't)...however Leo had a right to at least understand the full context of what was going on. I think the choice to have another sexual partner (for WHATEVER the reason) is something that MUST be discussed by both parties because it has to do with trust. Kira and Leo (at least to my knowledge) were operating within the bounds of an exclusive relationship. To make an analogy...if my girlfriend needs medical attention and (because I'm living in a crappy place like the USSR) the only way I can make money to pay for her treatments is by selling cocaine, doesn't she have a right to know where the money came from and reject it if she so chooses? Cocaine is illigal. Selling it compromises the principle of "following the law." Assuming prostitution is legal...secretly whoring yourself out to a wealthy Communist to pay for your real lover's medical treatment compromises exclusivity, trust, etc. I think I would have a lot less of a problem (though I would still have a problem) with the Kira/Leo situation if it was talked over and open/honest. There is this excellent Objectivist (LeAnne Bell) that writes columns on relationships, romance, etc. I highly recommend reading this article so you understand where I'm coming from: http://www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/75.htm On Kira's end it was totally prostitution. She wasn't in philosophical agreement with Andrei nor did she love him. She knew that by selling her body and mind she could get cold hard cash. Think of it this way, prostitution is a *trade* based system. Kira definitely operates on the Objectivist trader principle. It is why she was with Leo (romantically and sexually) in the fullest sense. She wasn't stupid or naive. She knew exactly what she was doing. She went out of her way to see Andrei sexually and lead him on relationship wise for the purpose of making money so she could guard and nurture her *real* value (Leo). Look at your own quote . It isn't like she was into Andrei's philosophy. She despised the Communists and what they stood for. She did NOT respect Andrei's blindness. He didn't practice the philosophy of Communism and lived more like an Objectivist (whereas Leo betrayed Objectivist principles)...however he was too blind to see that the crap of Soviet Russia was a byproduct of the philsophy that he supported. Thus, you can't say that she was screwing Andrei because she loved him (if so...she would have had an obligation to break up with Leo or at least inform him). She screwed for money. If that isn't prostitution, then I don't know what is. Read the article I linked and see above . You ask really insightful questions. 1) The corruptoin of romantic relationships that I speak of is the fact that NONE of the relationships in WTL are ideal. They all have the elment of darkness embedded in them. -Victor and his bitch are a total perversion of things as they "should be" (like James Taggert and Lilian). -Kira prostitutes herself out to save Leo which ends up to be in vain because he ends up a drunken lout. Moreover, Kira isn't exactly honest with Leo about what she does with Andrei...nor is she honest with Andrei. -Andrei genuinely is head over heels for Kira and honestly believes that she reciprocates his feelings. He is absolutely crushed when he finds out about Leo and the fact that Kira was using him for his money. 2) I see Kira as the ideal woman in the sense that she fought for objective values with all she had. She tried shrugging as soon as it was possible (when she and Leo tried to escape the country) and she always lived for herself. She doesn't share the dysfunctionalism of Dominque or the errors of knowledge that Dagny have. I respect the fact that Kira was willing to go all out when it came to fighting for her values. I respect the fact that she was willing to prostitute herself out to save the man she loved. That is a very very very powerful love indeed. It is also a very powerful woman...a woman of steel and fire. I see Kira as being an ideal woman in unideal circumstances. I see those circumstances as coloring the actions I don't like (her not being honest with Leo or Andrei). I can't imagine Kira doing what she did in the United States. Not only would it not be necessary, but she would have had the opportunity to accept inner peace/freedom as the norm and not the exception. Does that make sense? If I continue the analogy with my girlfriend as an example, I have no doubt that my girlfriend would do the same as Kira if we were in the same situation. However, I would expect my girlfriend to communicate with me 100% and she expects the same of me. What I respect is the passionate living, philosophy, and spirit of Kira. The actions are colored to the degree that she lived in a hell hole like Soviet Russia. Make sense?

First off: A song that perfectly describes a lot of stuff in We The Living: "Three Evils Embodied in Love and Shadow" by Coheed and Cambria. Check it out here: The sound quality is nowhere near the actual CD. Claudio's vocals sound WAY better on the actual CD and on my iPod. You will get the idea though. You might actually have to click on the song in the Myspace player as it might not be the first song that is qued. Click Here for Lyrics if you need 'em EC: "Not to sound Naturalistic but I love the way Miss Rand made these characters so realistic, like people you may encounter in daily life, albeit the best of those people, while showing what a man must do to survive living in a slave state." Lol. You don't sound Naturalistic at all. Yes, Ayn Rand DID show a very detailed picture that illustrated what life in the Soviet state was like. The key thing separating a good author who uses detail and a Naturalistic author that is using a great deal of detail is the motivation and the purpose of the details. Ayn Rand comments in The Romantic Manifesto that a good author only writes what is metaphysically significant and NOTHING should be accidental. The crummy details of Communist life were such that giving us the gruesome "full picture" really IS metaphysically significant and done for a philosophical (aesthetic) purpose. Naturalists on the other hand don't have any philosophical purpose. They just write "slice of life" pieces just so they can say, "This is what X time period looked like." With a good author, you generally don't have to really dig to figure out *why* the author used a high level of detail in certain areas. If it isn't clear at the time, it should easily be clear in retrospect (with the full context of the novel). Given those facts, I would seriously hope that no Objectivist (including yourself) would ever equate enjoying Miss Rand's great literary talents (even in the realm of descriptive writing full of details) with Naturalism. Ravayne: "I fell in love with Leo and Andrei, and the way that Leo and Kira met is something that I hope to experience one day." Funny. That is not the first time I have heard an Objectivist woman say that...lol. "This also brings our war in Iraq to a new light - if THIS is what it means to be oppressed, if THIS is the result and sum of a corrupt government, if there is ONE Kira for the hundred thousand other brainwashed looters there- isn't she worth saving? Wouldn't you do anything in your power to keep her from that end?" Eh. I think the escaping Cuban refugees that we keep turning away is more akin to WTL's real life implications than Iraq. Yes, I would definitely do everything in my position to save a Kira. The only problem is, how do you distinguish Kira from the looters in Iraq (or any other enslaved country)? If you haven't noticed...there are a LOT of philosophically f-ed up (read = hardcore Muslims) in Iraq just like there were *sincere* Communists (like Victor's wench in WTL) in the USSR. Is the answer simply liberating all oppressed countries? That is a hydra that I think would exhaust our resources and moreover, detract us (the United States) from productive purposes in the long run. If you just start liberating countries, you often make them "free" enough to start killing each other. We did that in Guatemala with Operation PBSUCCESS (we overthrew the government) and sparked a civil war that killed 100-200 thousand indigenous Mayans. People like Kira are most likely in the overwhelming minority in countries outside of the U.S. The United States in a lot of ways is unique due to the unique philosophical influence of the Enlightenment. A lot of places never had a Renaissance or Enlightenment. For people like Kira that are an extreme minority among millions of philosophically brainwashed or mix-principled people....it is probably a safer bet to try to escape the country than try to escape the fascists AND American bombs, the ensuing chaos from such a liberation, etc. Moreover, what obligation (if any) do we have to nation build and fix global problems? If it is in our best interests, sure. However, if the U.S spreads it too thin (like Rome did) on too many fronts with global policing, we start neglecting our *own* security. We start living for the rest of the world and NOT ourself. That is something I philosophically dispute. I don't disagree with your sentiments, Ravyane. Nobody likes the idea of a real life Kira living in Iraq pre-invasion. However, the potential that such a person exists cannot be a justification for a whole lot of death of American troops with no assurances that the people worth saving even have a remote chance of surviving (if nothing else because they are in such a small minority that they probably aren't identified - after all...Bagdhad DOES have 5 million people....how is that for a needle in a haystack proposition?). If we were talking a society of philosophically ideal people (like Galt's Gulch) under attack from an oppressor (like Hitler) I can see coming to their defense as being in our best interest. I don't think we have an unconditional obligation to fix the problems that arise from petty and impotent dictators (on the global level) based on an a hypothetical possibility that there might be a very small minority of people worth saving. If such a group exists, we should attempt to extricate them from the country or offer them asylum when they seek it (like the Cuban refugees or the Jews that fled Hitler's regime that we turned away). Kantardjiev: "It has plot flaws (early on at least) that aren't plastered over by memorable quotes and theory, like some of Rand's later books. I often felt frustrated with Leo's character and as much as I despised Andrei and his position, his personality (which really showed in the second half of the book) and attitude towards the woman he loves was far more similar to me than anything Leo showed. If you remember Leo and Kira met in a street, while he was looking for a tramp. He ends the book calling her just that and rarely realizes the sacrifices she has made for him. Too often Leo is willing to accept himself as a victim. Another instance that really annoyed me was the purchase of the royal porcelain. Interesting metaphor, but in general his lack of care for money made me hate him more than any other character in the book outside of Victor. As the traitor, Victor is the psychological extreme, he has accepted rule by hunger and will do anything to succeed in the life he is given. He is perfectly malleable while the individualists are far more stiff (and to further the metaphor) with Leo being brittle." au contraire, mon ami. I think that is the point Rand was aiming for. Leo is NOT a Rand hero in the idealized sense of John Galt of Howard Roark. Leo is symbolic of WASTED potential that is wasted due to being crushed by the burden of living in a Communist dictatorship. It is also wasted by Leo's choices that set him apart from a REAL Rand hero (the only one in We The Living) : Kira. Leo gives up. He IS hugely flawed. That is the point. You are SUPPOSED to feel frustrated with Leo and grow to hate what he becomes. You are supposed to hate the USSR more because you know that Leo would have probably ended up more like John Galt than Victor had he lived in a free country like America. That isn't a plot flaw or a flaw in Miss Rand's writing. In fact, it is EXACTLY what she intended and it is conveyed perfectly...because you felt exactly what you were supposed to feel at Leo's bad choices and philosophical demise. intellectualammo = First off, I agree with your assessment of Kira as the ideal Rand hero. Second.... "Kira is my favorite female Rand character right now. I enjoy rereading specific scenes from the novel, like her conversation with Andrei, when she tells him of how she was proud of using him to pay for Leo's betterment." Ah. I HATE reading that part because to me it is emotionally painful. I see Kira as the ideal woman...a lot like my girlfriend. I imagine us living in a statist country and me needing medical care. It seriously makes me queasy to my stomach to imagine her in the arms of another man so she could pay for my health. Honestly, it would take so much away from our relationship and from my emotional health that ANY physical health benefits incurred from the prostitution would be immediately mitigated. I value romantic love so much that the corruption of romantic relationships in WTL is one of the hardest parts for me too take when reading that novel. It doesn't make me *sad* in the sense that Kira's death makes me sad. It makes me nauseous. -Evan [edited to add the song stuff at the beginning of the post]

Whoops...lol. I knew I probably forgot something basic when I was writing my post.

Leo is brilliant and full of life. However, he is pretty much prevented from living an ideal life under the Soviet regime. Leo pretty much gives up on seeking real values and living a pure life. He descends into alcoholism and criminality as it is the only way to really flourish in the Communist system. Remember the story in Atlas Shrugged about the 20th Century Motor company where under the Starne's plan people who used to be pretty decent essentially gave up on life when they signed their own death sentence by not resisting Starne's plan? They also lost any virtue and humanity and that is described in detail. Leo is essentially a GOOD person, however he has a sort of Dominique-esque fear in him. He is afraid to live a life of value because he sees it as being essentially useless considering the USSR's attempt to stamp out anything truly valuable by making it public property or destroying it outright. Kira fights, Leo doesn't. Leo becomes bitter and hateful towards the Soviet reality for not allowing his full unbridled potential to serve its own noble end. At THAT moment, Leo was probably seeking a prostitute because he: 1) hadn't found a woman of value and wanted to feel alive (escapism) 2) had sort of given up I take the scene as showing that despite the fact that Leo is aiming low in his actions (seeking a prostitute), his nature/higher "real" values prevent him from just following through with someone he cannot remotely value (the actual prostitutes in the area where he meets Kira). I also see it as a foreshadowing technique that also shows that Leo has escapist tendencies lead him him towards less than ideal behaviors. I think it shows (quite clearly) what Leo IS as a human being...the good and the bad. If you have read Atlas Shrugged, you know 'Frisco's speech about the nature of romantic attraction and the notion that you can tell volumes about a man by what type of woman he finds attractive (a brainless slut or a powerful moral woman). Leo didn't find the real hookers attractive (which is redeeming). However, that didn't stop him from seeking the paid sexual services from a woman he thought was a prostitute. I DO think that he thought Kira was a prostitute before they had spoken. I think Leo was nervous because he had a sort of guilty conscience (a value clash). I think he was nervous and went to a warm inviting smile because that was in his eyes, an invitation to do business...like a validation of his behavior from another party. The smile divorced him of the burden of having to approach the prostitutes and solicit them directly. He said the first words to Kira, but in HIS mind...Kira spoke first with her smile. I think Leo was nervous and probably not thinking straight...and thus jumped at the first sign of life and warmth that responded to HIM. I think he just assumed that Kira was a prostitute because where she was at in the city and because he knew that SHE must have known what part of town she was in...thus...if she SMILED at him, it had to be a deliberate action (an invitation) from a woman who either was a hooker (due to the location) or a woman that knew that a less than desirable man was in a red light district. I think he went to her also because she was pretty and non-typical as well (as you mentioned). Make sense? P.S = Sorry for the choppy sentences. I'm dog tired and it is 4 in the morning.

Freak accident? hmmmmmmmmm. You sure we shouldn't call the FBI? (joking) Does anything about the architecture of the White House or its history suggest that the White House isn't designed for maximum efficiency or functionality? In other words...what makes you think Roark would do anything any differently? Despite not knowing the explicit philosophy of Objectivism, many people still follow the basic tenets and live for themselves (which is why a lot of people find Objectivism and have reactions like, "Oh...I already believed most of these principles."). Thus, why does the white house and Objectivist architecture have to be mutually exclusive right now? Is the White House deficient in any way or could it be improved upon (considering cost, size, security demands, etc)?