Maarten

Yes, welcome to the forum

I am not replying to that, it was a reply to some of the other points she made... I haven't yet read the relevant article myself, and I would rather not base my opinion on just one paragraph of text. I was merely pointing out that those two statements are not in conflict.

That's because they are contextual, and apply to different things. When she says that what is proper for a man is proper for a woman she is talking about all the areas of their life, except for romantic relationships; these are an exception. In almost every aspect of their life they both act as man qua human being.

Hmm, but that (looking up to a man) would simply imply that she is not that good in that particular aspect... Just because I am not the best mathematician in the world, and I look up to him doesn't make me inferior in every aspect... Similarly, if women need to look up to men in a proper romantic relationship this wouldn't say anything about whether men are better than women; only in this particular highly delimited aspect of their lives would there be a difference. You could just as easily claim that women are superior to men because they can do things we cannot do at all, but this is equally wrong as far as I can see.

But it is only in the romantic aspect of their lives that women act in a different way than men do. That doesn't imply anything about the rest of their lives. A woman needs to develop the exact same virtues a man does to be a person worthy of admiration; only the way this is expressed in a romantic context is different from how she would deal with reality in her normal life. I certainly don't see how women are inferior just because they approach romantic relationships in a different way, so I don't think it's fair to say that this is self-evident. And what exactly do you mean with equal? I think we can safely say that there are differences between men and women; there are two different concepts to denote them and everyone can see the difference without too much trouble (in normal cases, that is). I assume you mean that whatever differences there are are not relevant?

Well, you'd have to evaluate that using the proper standard (your life). If it has no side effects for you and the gains are very good then it would be okay. The problem here is probably that a lot of people don't quite know how to judge the long-term effects of their actions, so for them it would be much harder to determine if it's good for them or not. But still, giving it the best effort you can is infinitely better than giving up because it's too hard

Granted, I am not very knowledgeable about physics, but the reason he said that was because of the discovery that (all) matter can be converted into energy; so perhaps a good way to describe it would be that matter is just one way to store energy, so to speak. This might be confusing the potential with the actual, though (i.e. just because you can turn matter into energy doesn't make it the same). But someone who knows more about this should verify it

I'm not sure if this is always true. All matter has energy, but I think in some cases it may be all kinetic energy instead of potential. I know that in some models the potential energy of molecules is assumed to be zero (like the ideal gas).

Well, because humans aren't created with this limit to their volition. If we were somehow unable to disobey orders from our parents, it would be much, much harder to justify us having rights, wouldn't it?

Well, you have to be able to prove that they are. If you can, then it's no different from someone using other means of indirect force against you, like fraud...

But it's not momentarily non-volitional, it's part of its nature to be that way. This is very different from how human volition works...

What do you mean here with psychology? Things like sense of life, and how they generally react to events, whether they are generally very optimistic about things or not?

Except that some of us are trying to explain why it is an important factor in some situations. We can't just pretend like we're all exactly the same, because we're, well, not...

But wouldn't that be extraordinarily difficult for us Objectivists? I can't see us being a majority there.

How does that work, though? I can imagine that a small group of people who disagree can continue to change information in a negative way on the wiki? Is there some way to prevent that, or at least minimize the harm they can do?

That's TOC I don't think you can properly call them Objectivists...

Dictionary.com says: self·ish Audio pronunciation of "selfishness" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slfsh) adj. 1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: “Selfish men were... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights” (Maria Weston Chapman). 2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim. Granted, the examples they give portray it negatively, but a selfish person (in the proper sense) is chiefly concerned with himself, so it is still correct I think.

But I do not think anyone here was saying you should open doors for women solely because they are women. However, if they are of value to you then it is sensible to show this and a minor way in which someone can be of value to you (before you know other things about them it's more important, but it always remains a value) is if they are attractive. This is much more than just genetics, and I would think that just about any woman who cares for her appearance likes to be valued for that. Could you imagine what it would be like if someone you were interested was actually completely indifferent to this, or if he would even like you less the nicer you looked? Wouldn't that be completely horrible?

To the same extent parents are responsible for their children's education, I would think. And I think it would be reasonable to expect the android to give something valuable in return here, just like you'd basically expect some small things from your children in return for providing for them.

If it is a rational being, then it should have rights. There is no right to enslave, so the right to property does not apply in this case. If I am a scientist who can create whole humans out of cells, you wouldn't say those children are my property, would you? Well, this scenario is not any different. A piece of metal has just as much ability to form a living organism (in this case) as does a human cell that could not ordinarily do it on its own. An example would be if I were to take differentiated cells as my initial starting material. Besides, if they were really volitional beings like we were, they'd be born tabula rasa as well, and you could make a contract that said that while they learn everything they need to know there are certain things you can ask from them in return. It's a trade to mutual benefit, the android profits because he probably doesn't have the means to learn everything on his own, and the human gets the benefits of an extra worker or thinker or whatever

But I never disagreed with the equality you all are discussing now. However, Miseleigh was saying that you should treat men and women the same, period and that is what I disagreed with. It seems we have resolved this now, though Ragnar, @ means at literally, so it's a way of denoting who you are talking to

Yeah, I think that would cover it adequately In fact, I would think that when you get to know someone better it only increases the pleasure you get from doing such things for them, and showing how much they mean to you.

Yes, I can agree with that. Gender is not a value in itself, but beauty is, so that would be a valid reason for me And of course, friends would qualify as having value, so that would be enough reason to do nice things to them, because their happiness matters to me. It depends a little on context on what specifically I would do to show them this, though. Which is where considering their particular values comes into the equation.

My last post was about when you did not know the woman at all, by the way. Just to avoid confusion Perhaps a good way to say it is that in dealing with reality in general, men and women act as man qua human being, and only when dealing with each other in a romantic context does this orientation change. Then women act as women, and men act as men, rather than as humans. In most cases exactly the same things are good for a woman. She should be just as independent, productive and rational as any man in her everyday life.

We were discussing these things in the context of romantic situations, initially. So it would have helped if you had been clearer about this. What I am talking about most certainly does not apply to all women; that would completely null the reasons I have for doing it in the first place. Just like I can't love the whole world, I can't treat them as if I value them when I do not. Therefore, my comments did not apply to situations where there is no romantic context. However, I cannot just deactivate my sexuality, so if I am interacting with a beautiful woman I will treat her as one, at least partially. As I said numerous times, if she chooses to take that the wrong way that is her problem, not mine. I do not intend it as a disparagement towards her, and it should not be taken as such. And yes, to me beauty is a value to a certain extent, and it is enough reason to justify doing some extra things I would not do for a woman I considered to be downright ugly, or for a man. The situation changes of course should they need the assistance, but I do not hold doors open for the sake of holding doors open. So I do not treat her differently because she's a woman, but because she's an attractive woman and therefore a (small) value to me. I do not need to know her complete philosophy before I can judge her as attractive, and even though this initial assessment may change at a later time it's enough to act upon. I don't mean that attractive women are always more valuable to me than unattractive ones, but all other things being equal I would choose the attractive one every time.