Lathanar

Riding roller coasters is not an activity that should be a celebration of one's values. The two can not be equated.

I suggest checking out her Playboy interview. Some of the passages might help such as

I thought it was simply because it's hedonistic, seeking out pleasure for pleasures sake, not through rational values.

Because they are attempting to force them into sex, I put it almost at the same level as attempted rape. An employer could try and make an employee do a lot of things that the employee may not want to do, and the employer has every right to fire them if they do not comply, unless there's some sort of contract involved. I think this only applies though if it's something the employer wishes to gain through an employee's labor or efforts. If the employer wishes to violate an employees rights, take something away from an employee with the threat of firing, such as forced sex, or telling an employee he must surrender personal property to continue to work, I think the line has been crossed to where it's initiation of force.

Taking this solely in context of deception, regardless of the means of the deception (forget about the sexual aspect), should it actually be illegal. Thinking about it, I don't see why it should be unless it can be shown that damage was caused. Bringing the sex back into it, I agree with sexual harassment laws that protect people from losing their jobs or other types of damage if they don't submit to sexual advances, and in this case I don't think any threats of that nature were made, just an advance. I don't agree with the law trying to protect people from being offended. That's a matter for company policy and human resource department, not the law, if your coworkers are offensive individuals and the means of correcting the situation in the company don't work, quit. Bringing this back to the original post, if deception, then I could see them questioning Monica Lewinsky about how Clinton made advances to her to show pattern, but not to question what they did with each other. If it was threat, I'd also question Lewinsky about whether threats were made to her too. One last thing, if my memory serves right, wasn't the impeachment because they asked Clinton if he had sex, not actually what he did, but simply had sex with Lewinsky and he said no under oath? I think he would have been better fighting off the question rather than lie, the question really was not needed, only whether he made advances and under what circumstances.

If it was deceit. If it was supposed to be work related even in a hotel room, and your work has nothing to do with exposing yourself, then sure. But if it's not work related, and he asked her to come to his hotel room and she agreed to come, then it's just a horribly bad attempt at a pass.

The question at hand is what the customer is consenting that the business owner can do in his business, not what the business owner is allowing the customer to do. I don't think businesses should even really be brought into this, what went on with Clinton was not a public place like a WalMart.

They started out trying to define what pornography was, but never got a consensus before it degraded into sideshows and tangents much as this thread by going off into pornography. It was mentioned in the thread that Peikoff was at one point didn't really view pornography as being immoral then changed his mind, but no references for where this was mentioned which I would still like to look up his reasoning. I'm going to drop the whole porn line of thought since it doesn't really have anything to do with the original question. The "consent" point is still valid though, I still think that consent is being used in place of the idea that we have a right not to be offended. I don't see how someone exposing himself to another is a violation of rights, even if it's context might be immoral. I think this issue with Clinton is a bit different than when Rand said "This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship".

I believe this is why myself and a few others have asked what exactly is the definition of pornography, because what falls into those confines has changed culturally. What's allowed on TV now would have caused an uproar of righteous indignation in the 60's.

This is where the talk of morality comes from, I was addressing this statement which I view to be false. If you want to completely remove morality from the equation, this should broadened to include any objectable material, whether it's pornography or not. Why should pornography be held to a different standard than other forms of expression, if not because of the morality involved. I'd be interested in where he has talked about this, the literature I have does not mention pornography that I can find. How can pornography not be immoral and be immoral? I think I read your post wrong, I was reading it as the morality of pornography changes with culture, not the definition. My bad.

I was addressing CF's consent argument, not deception. I agree that if deception is wrong, whether it involves pornography or not. Yes it is Moral Subjectivism. I don't really care if it's pictures of full on midgets on donkeys, that's my point. The acts depicted might be immoral, but not because they are pornographic, it's because of the actual acts they are portraying, and not all sex is immoral. Also, pictures themselves are not immoral, it's how you use that pornography that would be immoral. CF's assertion that all pornography is sex I find to be quite ludicrous, especially without any definition. I don't agree with this, what's immoral will always be immoral. The definitions of what is pornographic may change, but I don't find pornography to be immoral, only certain pictures.

I see two problems with your position, the first is your idea of what pornography is. Your idea of pornography may not be the same as the next man's. To some people a topless woman is pornography, to some the Victoria Secrets catalogue is. It's a matter of culture, and while pictures of naked people may be sex for you, it's not for everyone. What is your objective standard to what pornography is? The second is your stance of consent. People do not need others consent to do what they want with their own property. If someone wants to display or sell what is considered to be adult content, they can. The only reason I can think of at all for someone not consenting as you put it to being shown pornography is because they are offended by it. If being offended is not the reason, than what is? Are any items being put up for sale or display by a business open to your consent rule? Are any of my possessions being put up to the consent rule when I go out in public?

Do you agree with the sexual harrassment suits then when someone finds the sight of two co-workers hugging offensive and files suit against the company?Being rude and obnoxious is not a crime, it doesn't have to be tolerated, but should not be legislated against. Another point is the idea that pornography is bad. The taboos on nudity which prevail in our society are irrational at best, so why is it ok to back an irrational belief with law? I can offend a christian by saying there is no god, but a woman can't offend someone by taking her top off in public? Where is the difference?

There is no right not to be tortured for animals, there are no rights for animals. The immorality does not derive from any rights of the animal, it is derived from the hedonism, which is immoral no matter what form it takes.

re·flex (rflks) n. 1)An involuntary physiological response to a stimulus. 2)An unlearned or instinctive response to a stimulus. in·stinct (nstngkt) n. 1)An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli. 2)A powerful motivation or impulse. I consider a reflex to be a type of instinct. Guess it all comes down to definitions.

Instinct is merely an automatic reaction, something done without thinking. If you think about it, you can surpress instincts, i.e. hold your breath, don't flinch at a needle going in your arm, don't close your eyes when you put your contacts in, etc.

Don't confuse genetic dispositions with instincts. The physical act of having sex I think is pretty instinctive, just as breathing, eating, etc. they require little thought to do. The sexual drive and what translates into desires isn't. Instinct involves doing something without thinking and having children is not something done without thinking, it's a genetic disposition to want to have children. Some people find value in having them, some don't and some get one whether they wanted one or not by not taking precautions, not because they did it instinctively.

We get to enjoy this in America too. Depending on the state you live in, you can pay federal tax on income, state tax on income, and possibly county tax on income, then when you shop you pay sales tax to any combination of federal, state, county and city tax. Ours is just lower than most, and some states have less.

My ex and I spent 6 years together and had two children, so when we split up, it was very hard to take and much drinking was involved. The mutual consensus between us was that we liked each other but could not live with each other, it just didn't work. I was lucky enough to find the best wife in the world and life has moved on, but my ex and I are still friends, and it wasn't until about a year after our split that we could actually start looking at what went wrong without being emotional about it. While there are things to point to, we still just come to the conclusion that it didn't work out. Sometimes the devil is in the details, just enjoy the good of what you had and learn from anything apparent of what went wrong, but don't let it define you. If we had not split I'd never have found the much better relationship I'm in now.

If you have no choice, how can you have an error. Error by definition is making the wrong choice. The stripes on a zebra are a metaphysical fact, not an error, you're opening up the whole can of worms that existence is flawed and imperfect. Existence has no choice.

I don't doubt that there's more killed/injured by drunks, I was merely pointing out what I run into more. Normally they are running at incredibly low speeds so I imagine any accidents have limited damage/injury as opposed to drunks. Actually the states have the rights to set their own alchohol limits, but along with the speed limits and drinking age, the federal government extorts the states into passing lower limits or have funding revoked, hence the sudden drop from .1 to .08. Most states wouldn't have the limits where they are.

I see no real difference between someone who is drunk and unable to control his car and someone who is sober and unable to control his car. Both people should be taken off the road, the drunk until he becomes sober and the other until they can prove they can control the car. I run into more 80 year-old people doing 30 in the hammer lane than i do drunks trying to hit me. I don't care about the level of intoxication, just their ability to control their car.

For the most part, self defense is just about the only reason to go to war. The force that's initiated to trigger a self-defense reaction isn't always violence. Why would it really be in our self-interest to go into Iraq for oil? Statism involves governments use of power to control economic resources. Invading a country to gain resources, and having the conquering government direct where those resources go is wrong. Invading Iraq to spread freedom as a primary reason, to force a political/philosophical ideology on another country is wrong. Governments work on rules, people work on principles. Stopping the spread of an opposing philosophy is not the job of a government either. If we go to war it should only be to protect, not to spread our democracy, freedom, and the American way of life. Since a nation is only a collection of people, a government derives it's rights from it's people. If the people have no rights, neither does the government.

There really isn't a contradiction here, it's a qualifier. There are many circumstances which would lead to civilian deaths in a war, and like the current conflict in Lebanon, if they have civilians in what intelligence is calling a military target, so be it. It removes the use of indiscriminate force, if you're going to kill someone, you need a reason to do it.

On what basis, irrational fear or objective proof for violating their rights as individuals and citizens? Should we have interned every white man after Oklahoma City? Every school kid after Colombine or every farmer after Bath?