Lathanar

I desperately need some help at work, I need at least two web developers at this point, and probably 2 more by the end of the year. If you are (or you know of anyone who is) an experienced (at least a couple years and enough experience will remove any degree requirement), rational, and intelligent web developer looking for a job, please contact me. At this point, I'll even look at more entry level people if they are intelligent enough and fast learners, but they still need field experience. The pay isn't bad and as a bonus you get to work for or with me. Here is the job description and you can look up company info like location: JavaScript Developer- CrossFire If you submit your resume through the link on this page let me know so I can get you through HR and on to a phone screen. - Travis

Cobb county Georgia had a couple go rounds with ID and there was a school in Fresno that tried, but I think they should have been allowed, it was an elective philosophy course. Not exactly a scientific class.

Ok, I have to object to this line of thought. The Europeans brought disease that decimated the local population, the Europeans fought several engangements with them and pushed them past the Appalachians (King Phillips War and Bacon's Rebellion being two of the major ones). The Indians saw their entire civilization going down in very rapid decline as ever more and more of the white men came to enslave them or push them off their ancestral lands. Yes, at the beginning they did not understand property rights, and they took some trinkets to say, sure you can build houses and farms there and we will leave it alone. But the Europeans did not respect the boundaries they set and continued to grab land. I'd fight back too, don't make it sound like they were the initiators and got what they deserved.

His "Certain sensations" I would say have to be caused by someone's actions and "perceptions" would have to be perceptions of someone's actions. Not the mere perception of an existant. Things do not violate rights, the actions of people do. A naked man is as much a threat as an ugly man. A naked man assaulting you is different. Simply seeing a sexual body part does not "cause nausea, dizziness, dazzlement, or other conditions that impair one's ability to deal with reality". Nor would a social context cause a sexual body part to do the same. Seeing someone doing something with a sexual body part might. Simply seeing a sexual body part does not create a sexual situation. He keeps asserting this but fails constantly to back it up expecting us to accept it as self evident. The rest of his argument I see no point in even going into since it fails at this step.

I didn't say his work was philosophical or that he backed altruism as Rand used it. I said I've heard it referenced often to back the arguments for altruism.

His selfish gene book pushed the primary purpose in life is reproduction and protection of the genes, your children and future generations are more important than you. I've heard it referenced often to back the arguments for altruism from a rational perspective.

Happy Birthday David!

Gurode was contacted by the district attorney and asked if he wished to press charges against Haynesworth. He declined.

Man is born with no innate knowledge. He can only gain knowledge through interaction with reality, the environment around him, and the his use of reason to makes choices based on what he is presented. Would he not end up in effect being a "product" of his environment because of this? Do you think Rand would have sat down and written her philosophy if she had been born and raised in the American mid-west? Just a curiousity question.

Is that a yes or a no? I think I'm done with this discussion.

Do you get dizzy from talking in circles all the time? Answer the question, I'll clarify it more. Nudity on TV 20 years ago was not expected to be seen, and according to you that is a sexual activity and thus a violation of rights. Today nudity is now expected and is shown on TV, is it now not a sexual activity and thus not a violation of rights? Here's a hint, it's a yes or no answer.

Good, then you'll stop trying to say this is what Rand was saying. What she said was 1) protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. 2) the freedom not to look or listen 3) rights of those who find pornography offensive What right is she talking about in #3? The one in #2. What do they wish to not see? The sights of the loathsome in #1. That to me is a clear chain of logic to the right not to see that which one finds loathsome. That is not the right to one's sexual integrity.

So it's a violation of rights to change the rules so nudity is expected in a certain circumstance, I'll get back to that later, now to what you side stepped again. If nudity 20 years ago was not expected and today it is, is it still a violation of rights even though it is expected? Duh. In this context, society is a majority of people. When a majority of people decide that nudity is unexpected, and thus a violation of rights, and suddenly it is expected and no longer a violation of rights. Rights are derived from morality. This discussion has everything to do with morality.

I don't agree with it right now and I have been trying to find supporting work from her to see how she comes to this conclusion. Where oh where in what she wrote on this subject did she say sexual integrity? Lets look at the parts already posted on this thread, I don't have the material here: (emphasis mine) That is her argument, the right not to be offended by seeing something loathsome. This is not sexual integrity, nor according to her is the rules for posting warnings a matter of morality, but of ettiquette. Law created to satisfy social ettiquette. Theft is not being offended, stop trying to sidetrack it. She's talking about the sight of pornography being loathsome/offensive.

Was watching a show last night where two detectives were trying to figure out what the morality of the song 'pop goes the weasle' was. They asked a couple of people they were interviewing/question "Do you know what pop goes the weasle mean?". Some people tried to answer, some took it as a threat from the detectives. They felt they were threatened while the intent of the dectives was not. So are you saying it is still a violation of rights even if it has become expected? Wrong. No matter what words society uses, it is the concepts the words represent and the intent or deeds of those saying them that violate rights, not the words themselves. What a society has determined to be the agreed upon definition of terms is very different than society deciding it's ok to be nude at this place because we expect it and not to be nude at this place because we don't expect it. That is society dictating morality, and that is what you are advocating.

You were wrong, you were re-writing what she wrote. Rand was very clear about what she was writing and the terms she used. If you find it loathsome, you're offended. If she used the word offensive, she meant offensive.

That someone's foot was stepped on, or killed, or feels threatened is established before the trial. It has to be to even have a trial take place, there has to be evidence that someone did something to someone. What the accuser thinks those actions were is the charges filed. The whole point of the trial is to figure out what the accused intended if he was the one that did the deed. Why he should be guilty or not guilty. Yes, we do. During prime time. Apparently it's fine to do it during NYPD but not fine to do it during the superbowl. So I present to you again. Is it a sexual activity 20 years ago because you don't expect it and not a sexual activity now because you can? Agreed upon definitions of terms so we can communicate are very different than society determining morality. [edit for clarity]

Take a couple sets of answers to the quote: "I find big boobs sexually attractive" "I find a submissive woman sexually attractive" "I find a woman who makes me feel worthy enough to stand beside her sexually attractive". You can pull different philosophies out of all of them and personally I can't imagine a woman's answers would be exactly the same as a man. If you're simply meaning that a man and a woman would give different answers and you could figure out their philosophy from them, then I'm in agreement. I'm reading you're position as a woman and a man would answer the question the same.

Does Peikoff actually present anything new in OPAR? From what I've read so far and based off the sources he lists from Rand's works that are the basis for what he's presenting, I see it simply as a work to organize what Rand did, not as an addition to the philosophy.

I think Rand did a decent job equating sexual identity with masculinity/femininity and I fall back on that being her stance of what generates sexual attraction. All things being equal between men and women intellectually, morally, etc. the last thing that differentiates men and women is that masculinity/femininity and that is what attracts the opposite sex.

Glad it worked out. FYI, the department of labor is who to contact about these things if there is still issues.

Any free country has the right to defend itself, even against the good old USA. Any totalitarian government has no rights.

Lets look at the part before this quote How can displays of pornography be a violations of rights but at the same time not be an issue of morality? I find it quite amazing that she has falling back on social convention as a device for legislation at all. Right now this is a point I completely disagree with her on, and if someone else knows where else she describes where the norms of society should be used to create law, I'd like to know to see where her reasoning goes. By her saying it's an issue of etiquette, then there is no restriction on pornography being displayed as long as it's socially accepted. I'd also like to point out something of her quote your defending. Her issue here is "protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive" for which you have chewed several people out for using the word offend when not being offended is what this all comes down to. She's sees the issue the same as the rest of us do.

Actually, yes, the actual means of threats themselves are subjective. The person threatening someone is making an assumption that what he is doing is taken as a threat. What is not subjective is intent. Just because he did a bad job of threatening someone with the gun does not mean that's what he intended and that's why threats alone normally are not treated under the law. You can threaten someone if you don't coerce them by threatening them or repeatedly harrass them. Telling someone "I'm going to kill you" is perfectly legal, but you can't say "I'm going to kill you unless you give me your wallet". The absurdity of your opinion is that what the accused intended does not matter, that's the whole point of a trial and a defense. What's even worse is the idea that the law is no longer objective and gets to start punishing actions subject to the whims of society, especially when dealing with sexual situations under your definitions. 20 years ago you would never see sexual body parts on prime time network TV. If you did see that, under your logic, it'd be unexpected and a sexual activity and a violation of rights. Now you do see it, so is it now suddenly not a violation of rights because you can expect to see it. Society and social circumstances do not get to determine if something violates rights or not, an action either does or doesn't.

The ideology involved was an issue of the relationship and power of the federal government over the states, period. Slavery was an economic issue for most and a moral issue for some, the hot button issue that caused the split. Today, you could substitute slavery for gay marriage and get the same result, where states believe marriage is an issue to be determined by the states and not the feds. Most people were content with slavery confined to the states that it was in, but the Dred Scott decisions removed that.