JASKN
-
Posts
2624 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by JASKN
-
-
I don't find her attractive, nor very feminine. Her form is distorted, her hair scraggly, and her body is striking an unpleasant pose. Like she's about to gorge out my intestines. I also don't like her face. Mainly I think the problems are with the execution of her physical form, or lack thereof. She isn't very realistic.Would you consider the woman in the next drawing to be feminine? Beautiful? attractive? Why?Kiera Knightly has a pretty face, but her figure is very boyish, or skeletal. She is a good actress, though, especially for her age.
-
Perhaps some of the threads on sexuality would help you get the proof that you need. Since there is no scientific proof a la a chemical reaction displayed before your eyes or a bat breaking glass or something to that regard, at this point the only proof concerning the nature of sex is based off of experience and what we already know about psychology and the human mind.This is the hardest area of immorality to judge, as it necessarily is context-dependant on the person and every person is unique and different. The only solution is to give a wide benefit of the doubt to any such practices in question. Practices (including bestiality) which don't violate the rights of others and can only possibly harm the practictioner should be presumed to be moral unless proved otherwise.And the one thing this thread lacks is proof, evidence, support or anything of that kind. There are plenty of conclusions and assertions about the immorality of bestiality, but as I stated above, that is not enough. To say such behavior is immoral requires more than one's personal beliefs or whims.
As far as I can figure, an animal is different to a person's psychology than your average plastic or rubber sex toy, although they both have equal rights, because it is alive. That is a big leap from a rock if you are going to use it sexually. Inspector, would you disagree? Instead of writing a lengthy explanation, if you do not agree, what do you believe the major difference to be, or the biggest harm to a person's mind?
-
Yes, I agree. I apologize Vladimir, I did not mean to imply that you personally are only looking for a warm orifice, and RationalBiker's rephrasing is better stated for what I wanted to know.I don't think it's fair to personalize this. Perhaps your question could be phrased, "Do you think sex is moral if one is simply seeking a warm orifice?" -
I will then put it this way: torture of and sex with animals is unhealthy for an individual in normal circumstances for a myriad of psychological reasons, and thus immoral. As DavidOdden pointed out, self-destruction is a form of immorality.Again, you are asking me to prove the converse of my argument and providing no support for your own. I am not asserting that bestiality is psychologically healthy. I am just saying that absent some strong argument and support, it is not de facto immoral as some here seem to believe.
What, other than a reflection of values, would you say sex should be? To be perfectly crude, are you just looking for a warm orifice?I think you are working from a false assumption about the purpose and value of sex. -
I don't see how it follows that I'm providing excuses for giving up on my dreams (!) from assuming that a person walking in a city most likely has an agenda they would rather not have interrupted.Thank you for expressing EXACTLY the type of excuses that people would normally use to justify why they give up their dreams. -
I don't think you can seriously assert that torturing or having sex with animals is healthy for a "normal" human. Why don't you list a couple examples where doing both would leave the human better off?If animals indeed have no rights whatsoever, then anything done to them cannot be immoral. Torturing an animal would no more be a violation of rights than torturing a rock.Perhaps you think that mistreating or having sex with animals causes psychological harm for the human and thus should be avoided. This may or may not be true, I think it is very dependant on the person and the context. So much so, that blanket statements such as "bestiality is wrong" have no foundation in logic or fact.
The fact that you don't think bestiality benefits someone's life doesn't make it immoral. You have to show that in all instances and situations, bestiality is anti-life for the idea of bestiality to be immoral. If you cannot, bestiality is then no different than any other sexual orientation which for some people can be harmful but for others completely harmless.
There is a huge difference between practicing a kind of "sexuality" with an animal and practicing sexuality with another human. I can't think of any example where it would be psychologically healthy for a human to (torture or) have sex with an animal, even if you were the last human on earth.
-
One could not possibly judge accurately based on a passing look in the eyes if the man or woman actually lived up to his dreams. And nobody would interrupt the schedule of an entire busload of people, hit the ground running and begin talking to a beautiful stranger who most likely also has an agenda of his or her own, because it would probably turn out to be a rude, presumptuous gesture, and a big waste of time.
"Oh, you have to go? Uh... ok. But your eyes, they're so dreamy! Oh, sure, uh yeah no problem. Ok well, bye."
Now you're stuck on the side of the road without a ride.
-
Well, I would begin my argument by pointing out that without farmers, factories, philosophers, and other such mega time-savers, businesses like Splashin' Safari would be obsolete. And without Microsoft, many businesses now would just not exist.
But as I said, I haven't developed my thoughts much on this subject, so that's why I would like SoftwareNerd or anyone else who has to articulate what they have concluded.
And I don't think your notion that any business which generates wealth by every party's mutual consent is essential. I mean, a cake factory is certainly not essential... I think.
-
Has anyone seen this movie, and if so would you please share your opinion?
-
Actually, yes, that's what I thought. Before I start spouting off some poorly-developed justification for such a belief, for my benefit could you please explain why you think theme parks are as valuable as computer companies, energy companies, medical researchers, steel factories, and other such "essential" businesses?Is there some assumption being made that running Safari park is a "lesser vocation" than, say, being employed (say) as a university professor, a computer-programmer, a soldier, etc.?Concerning development companies, I don't know much, so right now I can't comment on that type of business.
(Btw, Astroworld is a funny name.)
-
Yeah, that's what I was insinuating. It wouldn't be that big of a deal if most of those businesses didn't exist.
-
A criticism against Ayn Rand and her capitalistic utopia that I once read cited the huge lack of businessmen to live by her views, or give her any sort of credit. (I may or may not have read this on Nathanial Branden's site, in his anti-Rand essay). I must admit, the businessmen proponents in the story are not exactly the cream of the crop.
-
Well, why should sex be a celebration of one's values?Riding roller coasters is not an activity that should be a celebration of one's values. The two can not be equated. -
Sophia:
Well of course nothing is stopping you from doing so. My point is that there is nothing inherently immoral about doing so.
Maarten:
But sex is an end in itself. You are not investing in anything when you engage in sex, unless you are already in a romantic relationship. Then you are investing in the well being of that relationship. And what if someone is simply not looking to be in a romantic relationship, so the "better" alternative isn't even in the equation?The reason why it hurts you in the longer term is that such a relationship still requires a certain investment of your time and effort that cannot go to other things that are valuable to you. A human being only has so much time to spend in one day. Unlike time you spend on your productive work or on improving your own value this happiness you create here does not help you much down the line. By the nature of a casual relationship it is not meant to last, and any time you spend on it does not stay with you.Perhaps a good analogy would be that it's like using your company's money to go on vacations instead of investing it in your company. The second alternative will improve the ability of your company to generate more profits down the line; the money you spend on recreation does not bring such a benefit.
What makes you think casual sex will hinder someone from searching for a romantic partner, if he so wishes? Also, if he doesn't view casual sex as immoral, why would he care to engage in a romantic relationship with someone who has such a problem with it enough to be a hindrance to the relationship?Apoint to consider is that while you are engaged in a casual relationship you will be far less likely to actively look for your ideal partner. Nor is it likely that the woman in question will appreciate the fact that you're currently in a relationship. If your relationship right now damages your ability to get a better one in the future, I think you are also engaged in behaviour that damages your life.
I disagree. It does not follow that enjoying casual sex will devalue sex in a romantic relationship.Someone who treats sex casually cannot value the act as much as someone who does not do this.
That may be so, but what about those times when one is not in a romantic relationship?I am assuming that everyone here agrees a romantic relationship built on mutual love is objectively much better for a person than casual relationships*.Lathanar:
It's a rational value if someone weighs the variables and decides the sex is in his favor. What about roller-coasters? I love them solely for the sake of their effect on my senses, and I ride them because I think they are safe enough to trust my life to.I thought it was simply because it's hedonistic, seeking out pleasure for pleasures sake, not through rational values. -
Inspector, as with hunterrose, I also do not think you have provided any evidence why, with two willing participants, casual sex is immoral. You can proclaim that for most people, it appears that sex in a mutually loving relationship is better than casual sex, for a myriad of good reasons, but to deem the latter immoral, I don't buy it.
Morality is based off of reality, right? Well, I observe sex in a loving, romantic relationship as fantastic, on a different level than sex outside of such a relationship. But, I also observe the more casual sex, in certain circumstances, to be of value to certain people also.
I have a hard time imagining casual sex to be of value, since in my experience, I have never enjoyed it. But I know enough people who enjoy themselves very much engaging in that kind of sex. If they have weighed all of the elements, if they enjoy casual sex for rational reasons, where is the basis of your condemnation?
By the way, I reread your previous quotes of Rand, and nowhere is it stated why sex must be so important. She places it in high moral esteem, but I see no reason why it must be held in such high esteem.
-
Well, you love them insofar as they can perform the act and provide their body. I understand that a lot of people have a really good time having sex with people they otherwise know or care to know almost nothing about, personality-wise. What's wrong with that? (...If) Nobody pretends to love anything beyond the sex, and everyone has a good time. Isn't the argument against this kind of sex that it is psychologically damaging? So if it's not, what's wrong with it?You mean with someone who you don't love? Wouldn't that be self-deception? Pretending to love them for the duration of the act? -
I'm sorry, I inferred incorrectly from some of your posts.That's not my shop.
Just like the stuff they have.
-
Yes, but why not sex?There are other things to do to service the needs of the body, that are not sex. -
There's something to be said for elegance, Olex, in response to a situation like this. Maybe you could take a hint from JMeganSnow.
-
"Act beautifully" is a broad criterion which would include those things you mentioned, and Angelina Jolie is certainly capable of delivering.?? I would hope there would be much broader criteria that that. Like quality of performance, tone and nuance that are on circumstance. Off the top of my head Blanchett would be a much better fit.Cate Blanchett would also be a good pick; I think she is a fantastic actress who is better at creating an original character than Jolie. Really, I could watch her forever. But I still stand by Jolie as a good choice for Dagny.
-
Wow, I don't know how I missed this. Thanks for finding it for me, SoftwareNerd.
-
[Mod's note: Merged with earlier, related, thread. - sN]
I am almost sure I have read this topic discussed at some length by Ayn Rand in one of her essays, but I can't remember which essay, or even which book. Does anyone know? I didn't have success with the search feature.
If I am mistaken and she only mentions it (like I found on the ARI site) but doesn't go into detail, is anyone able and willing to give me an overview on why the end does not justify the means?
I appreciate it.
-
How do you mean, exactly? It would be intellectually too advanced, or the animation would be too difficult? The latter is certainly out of the question (have you seen Final Fantasy? Or... any animated movie in the last five years?). And I don't understand your position as the former, either. One, there are plenty of philosophical animated movies out there, and I enthusiastically endorse the Ghost in the Shell movies and series, for example, which Sherry mentioned.An animated Atlas Shrugged film would be way, way beyond anything they have ever done to date in this area, though.Besides that, if the writers and director know what they are doing, I see no reason why it is more difficult to get a message or story across in an animated movie than a live-action movie.
-
Whatever, that was hilarious!Obviously I'm kidding.
My music available on Myspace.
in Music
Posted
A little weird, Mr. Standard, but I think I like it.