JASKN

A DIlbert cartoon becomes another excuse to bump.

Happy New Year to all.

You may find your own ways to pick and choose pieces of Objectivism to use somehow in conjunction with your religion, but you can't then call it Objectivism. By believing in a god on faith alone, you are denying the reality of the universe (metaphysics), your own faculty of reason (epistemology), the purpose of life as one's own happiness and exploitation of life -- not a quest to Heaven (ethics), and also the foundation of rights, the individual -- not God (politics).

As I said in the previous post, I think you really don;t understand the notion of "primary". Either that, or you simply don;t realize that your quote from Rand was about family not being primary to creative work. I did not dismiss your claim about the value of family. Indeed, I've been supportive of the notion of family more than once, and have indicated Rand's support too. I was not dismissing the value of family. I was simply pointing out that you were -- once again -- arguing that family was not primary, but just a means to an end.
You call this "sophistry" and appeal to "common sense". Surely the Jesuits taught you better.



Why would I skate away from something that is true?

You're on thin ice here.

As I've said repeatedly, it means that family is not primary. Have you read the entire interview? For instance, two sentences later when she says "there is no conflict between ... work and ... enjoyment of human relationships". Or, two questions later when the interview tries to clarify by asking: "Is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?", and Rand answers "not immoral"?
As I said in an earlier post, human relationships are extremely important, and probably essential to a truly happy life, but that does not make them primary. A sense of purpose is far higher in the chain.

My mother told me to always speak good of the dead. Okay: Kim Jong Il is dead. Good!

Of the Catholics that I know, I'm certainly not impressed with the consistency of their behavior to their claimed beliefs. I'm equally unimpressed with Avila's opinion that Catholicism is any less subjective than protestantism.

In the spirit captured by the OP, Merry Christmas

"The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”—not “Weep and Repent.” And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form—by giving presents to one’s friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance . . . ."

I know you are not un-educated enough to think that Jefferson believed the U.S. was a Christian nation. So, what idea are you trying to smuggle in here?

I'm with you on this one.
As time goes, I become more and more convinced that porn has such a bad rap because of ages of Christian influence on the culture. Like drugs, since porn had to go "underground," it picked up a lot of shady characters in the process. Knocking porn as such is like knocking your own sex drive.

I'm with you on this one.
As time goes, I become more and more convinced that porn has such a bad rap because of ages of Christian influence on the culture. Like drugs, since porn had to go "underground," it picked up a lot of shady characters in the process. Knocking porn as such is like knocking your own sex drive.

I'm with you on this one.
As time goes, I become more and more convinced that porn has such a bad rap because of ages of Christian influence on the culture. Like drugs, since porn had to go "underground," it picked up a lot of shady characters in the process. Knocking porn as such is like knocking your own sex drive.

Ironically, that same article has all the evidence to suggest that the numbers from August polls have zero relationship to actual outcomes. Not sure why they still do them.
I think a better way to predict at this stage it to extrapolate how Obama and GOP-candidate-X will play during the presidential debate, and how this might impact two audiences:
people who may actually vote for either party
people who may not vote

These people really matter most in the so-called "swing" states. So, for instance, even if there is a 5% swing away from Obama in New York state (with those number showing up on national polls) it is not relevant, because that's still too little to win those states.

Obama will tailor his message to the person he faces. With Paul or Bachmann, I think it would be relatively easy for Obama to run a negative campaign, scaring "independents" about a far-right shift. Meanwhile, neither of those will be able to counter with a positive, inspirational message. I will bet that in a campaign of scare tactics, the known devil will come out winner.

How does such a survey determine whether or not Objectivism is a cult? You're merely relying on equivocation: utilizing two different standards of morality. According to traditional morality, humans by definition are imperfect, and only other-worldly, supernatural deities are perfect.

So if Objectivists tell you that Rand was "morally perfect", and you tell non-Objectivists that fact, they will assume you mean perfection according to their morality, in order to conclude that Objectivism is a cult. On the contrary, so long as one continually strives to be rational in his choice of values and actions within the full context of his knowledge, and with his life as the standard of value, his choices are correct - he is acting perfectly moral.

I hate to revisit the word, "appears," but your argument that it appeared to be rape to Roark ignores the parts of the book that put the scene in context. Like I said, I'm not going to debate this at length. I will concede that there is some small amount of confusion created by Rand's phrase, "Rape by engraved invitation." If someone "invites" you to have sex with them, that's consent. If the activity is consensual, there is no force. No force means no rape. So, there is the confusion - obviously you can't have consensual rape. So, to resolve this contradiction you either take the entire book in context and conclude it was consensual, or you focus narrowly on the scene in question, evading the rest of the book, and conclude that it was rape.

The easiest way to challenge the "cult" accusation is to point out that in a cult, people must accept conclusions on faith, whereas in Objectivism, to accept anything on faith would be contrary to the philosophy.

Insofar as its members are truly practicing Objectivism, the movement is cult-proof.

Obviously there will be people in any movement - including the Objectivist movement - who accept conclusions on faith. Such individuals are not following Objectivism.

Here's a rhetorical question: what type of meaningful discussion does one have with a person who is pining for the halcyon days of Nixon, Jimmy Carter, "WIN" buttons, 17% mortgage rates, soaring unemployment, and great movies like "Death Wish".
More generally, the ignorance of history is one of the things that sends each odd generation down the same tired path that their grand-parents took.

Common sense, as far as I'm concerned. Slow drivers are surprises, and surprises are my main concern on the road. Add to going against the natural flow of traffic speed: worrying about cops and speed traps, which takes away from traffic awareness and thus driving safety in general. Like everyone, cops target stereotypes, and depending on your region, going the speed limit isn't enough. Cop avoidance in general may be necessary, which is just another attention diversion on the road.

Speed limits are de facto almost uniformly on highways, independent of the posted limits. Cities, I find myself going the speed limit almost always, sometimes slower. The de facto nature strongly suggests that they are not set correctly. Of course, I could argue against speed limits altogether, even in a private road system, in favor of penalties for being at fault in any type of crash. People would naturally be more careful about all aspects of driving, speed included. Following the speed limit would also no longer be an excuse for road apathy, if there was no limit set. "I'm going the speed limit, so I can txt, txt, txt."

I know I am preaching to the choir on this one, but I want to get this out:

Traffic laws are a travesty of the justice system, punishing people for violating nobody's rights. Everyone breaks traffic laws, often willfully and sometimes without even knowing about it, both of which suggest bad lawmaking. At best these laws serve as poor substitutes for what would otherwise be contractual agreements for private road usage, at worst they exploit the power of government force by expropriating wealth for use toward illegitimate government activity.

I am fed up with these laws. They are like taxes in that the money stolen from you and me is not great enough to warrant a serious uproar or rebellion, or even a letter to a government official. They are unlike taxes in that one can put a face to every single penny being stolen: the police officer, and as a side-note this has had a big negative effect on how I think of the police generally. How does one live with one's self when stealing money from another person, face-to-face, as part of a career?

The solution is privatizing our roads, whereupon everyone will be happy and nobody will be punished for using his own judgement on the road, unless it is warranted through contract breach or by damaging another or his property. That would eliminate the laws automatically. But since most people seem to accept roads as inherently government-operated, somehow setting aside the poor quality, upkeep, and price as a standard different from their other dealings with business and service, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

As a fast driver and a lover of the road (I dream of 7-lane highways), perhaps I am extra sensitive to traffic laws, cracked roads and congestion. Is there anyone else who shares my sentiment? What about the circumstances necessary for privatizing our roads?

What do you know, really? Just marketing images and scent quality. That doesn't address all of these other bizarre conclusions you've come up with. You address the conceptual points asked of you only with perceptual descriptions of marketing.
"*Why* does it matter that it's marketed to females?"
"Well, because the way the man is kissing her shows masculinity in a way that is marketing to females. Thus, I think only females should wear this."

That's not an answer or reason, it's just restating the problem.

It's like saying that a can of tomatoes with an Italian brand name and an Italian food recipe printed on the outside shouldn't be used in Mexican food because it is clearly marketed For Italians.

The subject is very important in the concept of objectivity. Not everything that takes into account the nature of the subject is subjectivism. He's just saying the concept of "order" applies from the point of view of human knowledge. We would not even be able to conceive a "disordered universe," since all that would mean is that A would be non-A. So the argument from design just doesn't get us to the necessity of an intelligent designer.

The self-contradictions of the Bible from Freespace (Timothy Sandefur's blog):

"A cool poster. I remember my Greek professor in college telling me, rightly, that the only people who believe every word of the Bible are people who haven't read it."

Following the "cool poster" link, there are links to two printable versions of the poster (PDF): 22” x 33” or 33” x 44”

Empirical evidence suggests that physical, mental and psychological differences are bigger between individuals than between groups. Differences in genetics, exposure to varying levels of hormones during gestation, and even diet after birth are biological factors that influence the emotional centers of the brain. These factors affect psychology in ways we are only beginning to understand. Dispite our lack of knowledge it is fair to assume that these factors will influence the conscious/unconscious mechanisms that determine sexuality. A male is a male only in so much as he has an XY chromosomal pair.

Please consider a man who's had an abnormally large exposure to estrogen (I'm no expert, my example is probably laughable, but it illustrates my point just fine). This man was awash in estrogen while in the womb and drank soy milk as a child (his parents were vegan). His emotional responses were feminized because of this, and as a result he internalized some premises that lead him to be excited by wangs instead of vajayjays. This situation has implications for the "is" which necessarily change the "ought." Wouldn't it be immoral for him not to pursue wildly satisfying sexual encounters with guys like Alcide from True Blood?

Your position drops individual context. Your decision to recoil from this widely understood context looks a lot like rationalization: You conclude men ought to chase women. You tailor your is by cutting away context, creating the flawed premise that all men and all women are the same, respectively. The unhappy result is that you use an ought statement to reach moral conclusions about real (untailored) is's. It appears that Rand may have been unaware of the endocrine system's role in human psychology - no context dropping there, just a best guess with the knowledge at hand. What's your excuse?

Sure.
Concerning Rand, I haven't looked into her infamous-ish homo views in a while, but I seem to remember Harry Binswanger describing somewhere on the 'net how Rand significantly changed her opinion of gays later in her life, around when he was spending a lot of time with her. I'm not going to try to dig it up again now, because I don't see much relevance for this reason: thanks to Rand's other great ideas, we can evaluate by ourselves whether her original comments hold any merit. In fact, this is what we should be doing all along.

Contrast that to EC's rationalist approach, where instead of deducing from reality, he deduces from deductions -- even more confusing when he uses Rand's own deductions, since part of what we're trying to do is see if reality holds up to Rand's deductions! This approach is confounding even for discussing metaphysics (the more easily checked against reality of the philosophic branches), much less ethics and human sexuality, which are complicated even when you're sure of all the variables.

Now to the homo ideas themselves. My own ideas are a mix of anecdotes and common sense. I don't know a lot of science behind the human mind, but in this case it doesn't bother me much. As a homo myself, I can more easily check whether an idea about homosexuality is true or false by honestly checking it against my own personal experience. Of course, if I'm severely psychologically damaged, that would skew the check -- but, I judge myself not to be, obviously.

I think masculinity/femininity is a mix of physiological influence and cultural influence, and essentially boils down to personality style. It isn't part of a rational faculty, but it will influence rational thought, as any part of a person which influences his values will do. Part of it is either set more-or-less permanently before a child fully develops his ability to reason (just like personality), whether inherent in his genes or just deeply ingrained, and part of it changes as a person changes, influenced by the factors of the world, just like the rest of his person.

I do think sex involves evaluating your partner, but I think that evaluation is flexible person-to-person, scenario-to-scenario. I don't think there is anything mysterious about it, and I do not buy into this "hero-worship" nonsense -- although the concept may apply in certain instances, which just means a different kind of sex. If you value more about your sexual partner, the sex you have with them will include this evaluation in the back of your mind ("hero-worship" included). I think there is a base-level evaluation that must be made before sexual lust is even possible, such as, "This is a reasonably-adjusted person who is physically attractive to me, who is without disease, etc., etc." Beyond that, it's all relative to what you expect out of the relationship, which is itself is also influenced by your evaluation.

When considering the ethics of sexuality, both the metaphysically-given and his choices based upon that, in relation to the rest of his life, must all be considered. Granting that a child doesn't really choose his sexuality in any normal sense as by using his conscious, rational faculty, sexuality as such isn't part of ethics. So, what must be judged ethically is the kinds of partners he chooses, why he makes those choices, if he is achieving the values he aims for, and whether those values are good for him. Is he having short flings but expecting them to be lasting relationships? Is he in a "lasting relationship" but longing for short flings? Does he have sex while willfully ignoring the basic criteria of "safe sex"? And so on.

When considering the ethics of masculinity and femininity, similar judgements are made based on similar assumptions. I don't think the sex of the person matters after the person is an adult, as it was just another factor in molding a person's sexuality pre-rational faculty.

I'm sure science will refine knowledge on this subject as time goes by. In the meantime, everything I've said is consistent with my own experience. It really irks me when Objectivists try to use Rand's own words to warp the correct method of reaching conclusions: observe then figure out. NOT figure out then observe (that is, try to rationalize pre-conceived notions into fitting with actual reality).

No point in discussing any supposed contradiction unless you can provide robust and complete definitions of your terms. Then, you must prove completely your application of those terms, or concede that your knowledge is not complete. Then, you can say whether that application lines up with Rand's philosophic principles.
So, for example, what is masculine and feminine? Is it a sliding scale or something definite you can point to and measure? How does a homosexual's (mis?)incarnation of masc/fem (metaphysically given? Chosen? Something else?) characteristics "contradict" metaphysical reality? What specifically is contradicted? What is the moral judgement of that (non?)contradiction, either way?

Yes, Jonathan, I do understand all that. However for my tastes the way it was portrayed was lame, trite, tedious and facile.
I also understand that the character of FdA was not supposed to be acting as himself during that part of AS however I don't find the director skilled enough to direct any actor to play any part of FdA's personality (real or feigned) much less one of a group of D-listers seen here.

Don't worry, Part II is being made. I'm sure the money speech will be omitted from there and then everyone can be disappointed properly.