Maarten

Hunter: But don't you agree that an ordeal refers to more serious things than what we are discussing? If someone were to tell me they thought it was an ordeal to get up in the morning, or reach for that cup of coffee that was 1 foot away from them I would also think it ridiculous to call it that. The same holds true for opening doors, or spending an hour or two beautifying yourself before a date. I may sound a little presumptious here, but I really have trouble seeing something that takes so little effort as an ordeal...

Equality for me, in this issue, is mainly related to that I think women and men should have the same rights, and that in all situations you shouldn't look at gender instead of ability; except in the romantic area where the gender goes from not-so important to extremely important (at least for most people). And the reason I am picking apart her posts, like you say, is because they do not make sense to me and I am trying to find out if she is simply using careless wording here, or if her ideas are just plain silly. (If that was mainly directed towards others, I apologize, it's a little unclear from your post)

He should require of himself to make reparations, though. This is taking responsibility for his actions. If he does that, however, he will most likely be caught. How do you think he should solve this?

Yes, I am talking about the way I act. Treating someone a certain way is an action, and if you should not treat them with bias, then how can I justify wanting to sleep with women and not with men? Obviously my actions here are different. What you're saying here is completely absurd... Sure I value men, but we are talking about how you act around people in romantic situations, which is obviously different from how you act around people when you work with them, or when you relax after work. And no, you did not misunderstand me. I meant that quite literally. What is it about being valued that makes you so uncomfortable? I don't see how you can conclude from this that I don't respect women. I would never, ever want a woman I did not respect, or who was not capable of providing for herself.

No, it wouldn't bother me to let my date buy dinner for me if she wants to. However, if she always insists on splitting the bill it might get annoying... If I decide to buy her something I want to use my money for it, not hers. And the same works in reverse. That is, unless we had a shared account, at which time this point would be a little moot. In case you never bothered to look down while taking a shower, men and women are not the same, so it's absurd to ask that you're treated as if you were. Before you try to burn me for being a heretic, I am not saying women are somehow inferior. I will never be able to bear children, and you will never be able to have an erection, so let's not pretend that we are exactly the same. Why is it so strange to treat women differently than men in romantic relationships? Are you saying I should be attracted to men as well, and that if I am only attracted to women I am discriminating? And like I explained many times above, I hold doors open because it shows I value her, not because she is incapable of doing so herself. If she misconstrues it in any way, that is her problem and not mine. She can always ask me why I do it, and I will happily explain the reasons. And yes, before you ask, I objectify women, and I pursue them like anything else that is of value to me. *shrugs* I guess I'm a male chauvinist, then... *edit* After looking up the meaning, I don't think chauvinist is the proper word here because it's far too negative for the concept I am talking about. However, if you take it to mean someone who considers men and women to be different I can live with that. Does anyone know a better term for it?

Yeah, but I don't think that is a valid reason to stop doing it. I think like selfishness, chivalry is another concept worth reclaiming from the barbarian hordes threatening our civilization Sure, it would be easier to just not do it any more, but like morality it's not the easy way you should follow, it's the right one.

(Bold mine) What do you mean with this? Should we stop being chivalrous just because some feminists decided it offends them? Women who get offended by me acting like this are not women I want to interact with, anyway, so I wouldn't say it affects my actions negatively in any way. It's their loss... When I choose to spend money on a woman it means I value her to that extent, so it should not bother her if she has any amount of self-esteem. It's not that I am trying to show how she cannot live without my help, as if she is worthless; I would never want a woman who couldn't take care of herself. But it still gives me great pleasure to buy things for her, as it's a very physical way of showing how much she matters to me, and because her pleasure gives me pleasure.

But there's a huge difference between the things they had to go through and what we are discussing here... And I gave the example of what would be an ordeal myself, so yes, I agree that those things can properly be considered ordeals. It just seems a little silly to say that spending an hour or two getting ready for a date is an ordeal, in the same way that I think it would be odd to say that getting up in the morning is an ordeal. Because if you realize that certain actions have costs, but the end result is worth it, it makes no sense at all to me to complain about how tough it is. I don't think that's what you are doing here, but a lot of people do consider it that way I think. The reason I say it's wrong is because I think you're not properly recognizing that actions have certain costs, and that nothing appreciated is ever gained for free. To say that it's not fair, or a painful experience, doesn't make sense if you see this. If there is no better alternative available to you, then what is the use in complaining about it? Do you think the pursuing of other values is also an ordeal, like when you are participating in recreational activities? I haven't ever seen someone use the term ordeal in this sense, and I do not see why it suddenly is appropriate here. I think you're misusing the word here, as it is completely inappropriate for the type of actions we are discussing, and it simply devalues the concept it embodies. But in general I choose to do something with full cognizance of the facts, which includes the effort it costs me and the difficulties I have to overcome, which are an integral part of pursuing values. I think it's wrong to focus on the negative aspects here, because they are not important in the face of what you stand to gain from them (I'm talking strictly about non-sacrificial actions, of course). When you have accepted the costs, it doesn't make sense to me to later complain about it. You're the one who made the choice in the first place, and it's taking responsibility for your actions that is the issue here.

An ordeal would be something like the total Howard Roark went through in TF, I think. Dictionary says: A difficult or painful experience, especially one that severely tests character or endurance. This is way, way too strong for something like spending time making yourself more attractive before dates. Besides, you're the one choosing the painful actions here, there are plenty of things one can do that make you more appealing that do not involve excruciating torture. Should you refrain from pursuing values in other cases where the benefit outweighs the cost? Of course it's a matter of weighing your time and effort so that greater values are not compromised, but in most cases here we are talking about actions that take up very little time for the added enjoyment they bring to you later. Rather, why would you not want to do those things for your significant other? I don't see where the notion comes from that it's somehow wrong to gain values in this area. Especially when we're talking about the actions men tend to perform here, it doesn't save you much time at all if you did not perform them, so you can hardly justify it saying that the value doesn't outweigh the cost. I think something similar holds true for female actions here, both within reason. Most things when pursued indiscriminately stop being values at some point, and that holds true for this also. But it is. If you perform actions you consider to be painful, and only do it because society demands you to, the how is that not acting out of obligation or duty? And I never once said that all social conventions are perfectly good; I am sure there are some worthless ones out there. Most however, do have a meaning and ignoring them does send a message, even if you'd rather not.

Depends, if you have to defend yourself then obviously killing the criminal is justified; he's the one who initiated force after all. It depends on how much of a threat the criminal is, but if someone is trying to kill you and subdueing him in non-lethal ways would be too difficult, then I'd say it's perfectly moral to kill in self-defense. However, this is different from civilians actively seeking out criminals to kill them. That would be illegal, as the government is the agency responsible for this, but I am not sure if it's also immoral to do this. In most cases that do not qualify as emergencies you should let the police handle it, though, instead of playing vigilante

It's also a very selfish motivation to make the streets safer, so to speak. I mean, it wouldn't be in your best interests if criminals ran around uninhibited, and actively pursuing this if you can is a very moral profession

If improving your beauty is an "ordeal", then so is improving your knowledge. Just because it takes effort and may sometimes be less than enjoyable doesn't make the activity as a whole painful to go through. That's just absurd. Both are values to a person, and it makes no sense to look down on them just because they require some effort. I haven't ever seen something important that was free to obtain without any work, so why do people act as if this should be the case here? Just for clarification, I don't consider learning to be painful, and neither do I think these activities should be. If they are, then I think you are approaching it wrongly. I think you're taking what I said slightly out of context. I was talking about situations where the person mattered to you; then it would be a value to perform those actions, and you should want to perform them because you recognize this. And I don't see the dichotomy between wanting to get something and considering it the right thing to do, both are the same in this case. It's the right thing to do because you act to gain a value here (or protect one that you already possess by performing "maintenance", so to speak).

That's not what I mean, though. If something happens to you, how do you choose whether to base your actions on faith or reason? Do you use faith when your reason fails you, normally?

How do you determine when to use reason and when to use faith, then? If, as you say, they can go hand in hand you must have an idea of when you use faith and when you use reason. Could you explain how you approach this?

Why not? I would think that it's possible to know from evidence available to you (in greater or lesser degree) which horses are in better shape and have a better chance of winning.

Your disagreement with Objectivism lies at a very critical place, though. It's very different from disagreeing about some particular application, because you reject the primacy of existence, and disagree about the role of consciousness. It has very major implications whether you think you can change what is with your consciousness, or not. I don't think you've said this, but I don't see the point in accepting God's existence if he cannot change anything about what is, or created existence in some way. These issues in turn have implications for epistemology, as you may find yourself abandon reason to faith just when you need it most. It has never solved anyone's troubles to think that just because they want something really badly, they can change reality, but this is exactly what the existence of god "proves" is possible. I mean, if one type of consciousness can do it, then there's really no reason to think why others cannot do it as well.

Of course, torturing animals just for kicks would be very wrong. Not because it infringes upon their rights, but because it indicates pretty severe psychological problems on your part if you enjoy causing pain. (In case this would be the next point people bring up) However, the value of a wild animal is pretty low for most people, so if acting in accordance with your values is the best course of action to take, then it would usually be bad to treat the life of a random animal as if it was worth more to you than other things, whether that is the increased enjoyment you get from eating meat or avoiding wrecking your car because you didn't want to hit that poor bunny. I'm sorry about the bunny, but if the alternative is a dead rabbit or a total-loss car the rabbit dies, every time... It's an entirely different ballpark if you try to hit all the animals you can on purpose, but I don't think Inspector was advocating such here

Why would a woman consider it an ordeal? Isn't it of great personal value to her to be found more attractive by the man she is interested in romantically? Perhaps I'm interpretating it poorly, but you're making it sound as if it's some sort of unfair obligation placed upon women. No one is forcing women to spend some time before a date maximizing their looks, so to speak, and I know I would personally value a woman who enjoys looking her best much more than one who only does it because she thinks she's supposed to do it out of social convention. Approaching these romantic situations from an obligation perspective is just as wrong as approaching anything else out of obligation. You should do what you do because you think it's the right thing to do; because it's in accordance with your values. It's just another way of showing another person they matter to you, and you can't do that if you act out of tradition or duty or because you simply think that's how it works in the world.

I think Matt's point was that it's not a very important issue, so it's not really worth it to make a stand on that. There are far better uses for your time and effort. In a way it can be compared to those libertarians who are making really huge issues out of drug-legalization. I mean, sure, in an ideal society those things should be determinable by each person themselves, but it's silly to make it a very important issue for your political campaign. I think the same goes for people who make really big deals out of ignoring non-harmful social conventions... it serves no purpose whatsoever and when you do have something to say the chances are that much bigger that people will disregard you as being a wacko out of hand, just like all those libertarians are laughed off the election stages This of course changes completely if the social convention is objectively harmful, but that is a wholly seperate issue.

I think the proper term regarding axioms is validate rather than prove. It's simply impossible to prove something that is the basis of proof itself. However, you can validate them by pointing to reality

But how would a person who uses the wrong methods to arrive at his conclusions ever know if they are correct? I think this is what sNerd means here. If someone simply acts on the range of the moment and doesn't look at long term effects, he may occasionally get it right, but that doesn't make his way of acting rational by any means. I don't think you look at results when you say if something is rational or not; it's the means that matter here. If something is correct it would be truth or a fact, but if you have no way of knowing what you say is true or not then anything you claim will be just so much hot air; to you and to others.

Hmm, I didn't mean that, exactly. But it is only natural to spend your money on things you value. If you never use your money it isn't really doing anything useful for you... I assume you also spend money on your favorite activities, so why not spend it on a woman to show that she is indeed important to you? I think (if you value her of course) it's a matter of integrity to spend your money on the things that matter most, instead of things that do not matter. Just to qualify this: I think the most natural way of dealing with dates is to assume that the person who initiates it pays for it. So if a woman invites me for dinner, I wouldn't go there expecting to pay half, whether it was at her house or not. I think a similar thing works for when the man asks the woman out, only it is probably more common.

But how would you prove something if there was no physical world? I think it's still one of the statements that would qualify for being axiomatic, because without it you can't very well lead statements back to their counterparts in reality; there wouldn't even be anyone around to make statements if the physical world didn't exist.

To expand on that: if we were to implement a sliding scale based on intelligence then we would also have to apply it to humans... I am not very comfortable with the idea of giving someone more rights for every 20 points of IQ, and subsequently taking away rights from those who are less smart. Yet if you take away the binary distinction this is what it would ultimately lead to...

Ooh, new forum interface! 2)Like 3 below, for me these things are a way of showing that I care about the woman; I think it's a subtle way of telling her that you value her enough to want to do those things for her. As far as I can tell from introspection it's a way of showing the woman in question that you are both willing and able to provide for her or protect her should that ever become necessary. I'd like to turn this around on you, though. Why not do these things for women? It's a rather minor effort you expend and the potential benefits you get from it are huge. She will probably like you better if you do this than when you don't, and if she does she will probably express this in some way. And frankly, that feels good 3) I used to question this also, but since I've started studying Objectivism I have a much more profound respect for earned money. If I know I have worked hard for my money, then it gives me much pleasure to spend it on someone I value. I do not mind in the least to do something like this now, but then I do not do it because it is tradition, but because it's a way of showing someone is important to you. You could have spent the money on other things you value, so for a person who knows the value of their own money this choice is very significant; it shows what his values are, and I think that at least in some cases (I haven't thought about whether this holds true in general or only for women who also know what it takes to really earn something) women pick up on this. For both of these, I must say that it makes a big difference to me how much of a value the woman in question is. I have far less motivation to be courteous and respectful to a woman I've just met than to someone who may one day be my wife... The second person would obviously be worth a lot more to you, and hence it's logical to show them that, too.