aequalsa

Thomas, I'm not going to use the eating-babies example. As I said above, I find that type of example as being of little real life use.

So, instead, I will use the example of the NYC mosque. Your claim is that DH (and perhaps others folks "defending" the NYC mosque) did not understand the context of rights/hierarchy of rights. This claim -- i.e. that DH think rights are context-less absolutes -- is the straw-man I'm talking about.

For starters, let me ask you if Diana has ever made such a claim explicitly. Even though I do not read her blog or listen to her podcast, from what little I know of her I'm willing to bet that she has not said this.

If she has said explicitly that people have rights as some type of contextless absolutes, even if they want to use those rights destroy our rights, then I will apologize to you and attempt to make recompense.

If no such explicit claim was made, then you are actually inferring that she believes this, based on her other arguments. Now, to prevent another straw-man, let me state this explicitly: it is often perfectly fine to infer things even if people do not state those things explicitly. However, one has to have good reason for such inference.

Consider this, I will bet that from other things that DH has posted on other topics, it is reasonable to believe that she does in fact think that context is critical to all sorts of philosophical principles, including individual rights. So, there is evidence against the straw-man, and when one has counter-factuals like the mosque example, one would be jumping to conclusions to think that DH changed her view.

Take an example.... obviously, there is no such thing as a right to start a bomb-making factory that is making weapons to attack NYC people and property. Do you seriously think DH would argue that there is such a right? Of course not. Do you seriously think many of the other Objectivists who said the mosque ought to be allowed would also argue for such a context-less right? Again... obviously not.

Take a second example. Consider some other mosque in some other American city -- say in Chicago, attended by taxi-drivers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Imagine that there was no reason to think this mosque was radical. If an Objectivist said that such a mosque does not rise to the level of a threat upon which government should act, would you say that this person is wrong? Perhaps you would, but would it valid to call this person's judgement of the nature of this activity and the level of threat a fundamental philosophical error? Would it be honest to claim that this person thought rights were context-less absolutes? To do so would be to argue a straw-man.

However, there is a difference between such a mosque and the one that was planned in NYC, and we ought to look at reality, and not allow people to smooth talk us with bullshit about good intentions if other evidence tells us the contrary. So, it is completely relevant to ask who is organizing the controversial mosque, what their motives are, etc. With this information, one can argue -- as many have done -- that these people are an actual threat -- and are no comparison to some no-name mosque frequented by regular middle-class immigrants. Fair enough... make that case then, and expect to convince your opponent or not. However, if you cannot convince your opponent that there is a real threat to individual rights, do not accuse them of not understanding that it is perfectly legitimate to act in the face of a real threat to rights.

I hope he above makes clear what I was referring to as being a "straw-man". The example of juries is similar. Juries are just one particular implementation of a justice system, and Objectivism is silent about whether it is a good implementation. There have been threads on this forum discussing why juries sometimes result in a miscarriage of justice. Now, if one were to show conclusively that individual freedom and justice cannot be served without having this particular implementation (viz. juries), then you can make the case that to be against juries is to be against individual right. If so, make that case before you raise the straw-man of people wanting to have their rights and eat them too.

I'm sure you'd agree that when encountering examples like this, it is wise to understand what your opponent is a actually saying, before starting to attack them. However, there is a certain method to doing so when that opponent is an Objectivist: try to understand how they tie their argument to the fundamental Objectivist principles. You will find that the disagreement is often not about principles, but about something far down the hierarchy. Often, the disagreement is about actual evaluation of some messy bundle of facts where one has to make one's best assessment, while knowing that one might be wrong.

In such instances, to attack one's opponent's basic philosophy is a straw-man that hurts your own position. Two sides of a small philosophical movement, who agree on fundamental principles, accuse the other side of disagreeing with the principles on which they -- in fact -- agree. The poster above was right: it is a farce.

In that part, since clearly a woman can say, "No, I do not consent" I took him to mean she could not give "every evidence" that she wanted to have sex with a man, then say she does not consent and still be moral or honest. In other words, in that case she is not a victim of fraud where he tricked her into his bedroom, but rather a perpetrator of fraud, herself, who communicated one message to a man very clearly with the intention of pretending to be misunderstood in order that she can accuse him of rape later, as has been known to happen to celebrities on occasion.

Again, I think he chose a poor way to phrase it, but holding the question in mind and his whole(somewhat convoluted)answer, I think this interpretation makes more sense, since it is connected to the original question. Otherwise, throwing in a, "oh by the way, it's ok to rape some bitches" has very little connection to whether or not a man who pretends to love a woman to sleep with her has committed fraud which is on par with rape.

Incidentally, his answer was that a man who used fraud to get a woman to sleep with him was morally equivalent to a rapist so I have to think that someone who did commit rape would also be a rapist in his mind.

In that part, since clearly a woman can say, "No, I do not consent" I took him to mean she could not give "every evidence" that she wanted to have sex with a man, then say she does not consent and still be moral or honest. In other words, in that case she is not a victim of fraud where he tricked her into his bedroom, but rather a perpetrator of fraud, herself, who communicated one message to a man very clearly with the intention of pretending to be misunderstood in order that she can accuse him of rape later, as has been known to happen to celebrities on occasion.

Again, I think he chose a poor way to phrase it, but holding the question in mind and his whole(somewhat convoluted)answer, I think this interpretation makes more sense, since it is connected to the original question. Otherwise, throwing in a, "oh by the way, it's ok to rape some bitches" has very little connection to whether or not a man who pretends to love a woman to sleep with her has committed fraud which is on par with rape.

Incidentally, his answer was that a man who used fraud to get a woman to sleep with him was morally equivalent to a rapist so I have to think that someone who did commit rape would also be a rapist in his mind.

I don't think that what you describe here is within the context of the question he was answering for the reasons that I describe above.

I agree that that is the right place to start.

Starting from the assumption the LP would not endorse rape, because he probably wouldn't, I notice that the section in question is immediately followed by "So, we're assuming it's not that type of case and you actually have created some kind of false identity; she falls for it and she never would have otherwise." The "So" implies that this sentence follows from the point made in the previous example. The false identity a guy in the actual question he is answering, would be using, was not used in the case of Kobe Bryant. He invited her up to his bedroom to have sex. She agreed and then changed her mind at some point in the encounter. I take it to mean that a woman in that position could not claim that she was defrauded into going up to his room.
,Since the Kobe case was dismissed and charges dropped, he may have, rightly or wrongly, been thinking of that as one of those cases where a woman goes to a man's bedroom and consents to have sex, does so, and then remembers being raped the next day, either for money or to protect her opinion of her own chastity. To which he is saying, "you cannot do that." You cannot have your cake and eat to.

edit: I agree, btw, that it wasn't clearly said, but having listened to most of his podcasts, read his books and having met him personally I can't imagine for a second that anyone similarly familiar with his writing and being honest about it would think he was actually, or would ever endorse rape.

There are contexts in which a woman would resists a little, but give in at the end. Maybe less these days, but certainly when Dr. Peikoff was a young man, that happened quite often. We've all seen movies in which the guy gets his hand slapped right around second base, cut to a happy couple raising a couple of rug rats. Sex is not something that happens after a factual discussion on who agrees to what. There are nuances involved that Yes/No doesn't cover.

But it's not for me to imagine a context. I'm happy with just shooting down the product of everyone else's imagination. If you want to indict Peikoff, you have to rely on the things he actually said, not anyone else's imagination.

I would however assume that Dr. Peikoff was thinking of a scenario that in no way involved the use of force. I base that assumption on his statement that it would be wrong to use fraud, to have sex with a woman. Don't you agree that fraud is merely the less egregious form of the use of force, and that Peikoff knows that, and therefor it is safe to assume that he also believes using direct force to sleep with a woman would be wrong?


I think he meant his comment on the nature of consent. Absent fraud or the direct use of force (and they are absent, you can check the quote, there's no mention of them), there is no reason to think that a woman is being coerced into having sex, given the few details Peikoff gave.

But I just googled the Kobe case, and I think that part is clearly a throwaway example. He probably has some wrong info on that case.

It's important to maintain the context of his answer. I think it's pretty clear that he is talking about a legal context: that is, a woman should not be able to legally claim she has been the victim of rape when she declines at the last second after having presented a large amount of evidence that she did consent (if this were the case, it would be much too easy for women to claim that they had been raped arbitrarily in order to punish their former boyfriends or for some other reasons). Cases such as State v. Rusk (http://wings.buffalo.../web/mdrusk.htm) are evidence that it's not always easy to determine when rape has occurred, but it is very important to set strict limits on when rape can be claimed to have occurred, since it obviously can ruin a person's reputation.

Ninth Doctor/brian, notice that you completely changed the context by supposing examples where the woman was physically harmed. Physical abuse of that kind is illegal regardless of whether or not rape occurred.

Whether or not it would be immoral for a man to continue to have sex with a woman after she changed her mind about having sex in the middle of the process is not at issue, and is therefore not taken into consideration in Peikoff's answer.

Finally, regardless of whether you think Peikoff is correct, I advise anyone who thinks that consent can disappear "whenever the woman says so" should consider the implications of that view. That's something that a malicious woman could very easily take advantage of. So I think the broader context needs to be considered to establish whether or not consent is in fact present.

Tristan

A contradiction in thought is implied, not actual. No one can think something is and that it is not in one thought. It's impossible to actually think about a triangular circle. However, there can be inconsistent thoughts that imply a contradiction: he can be asserting something in one instance, and then denying it in the next. And then we say, "That can't be right, because there are no contradictions: what is, is what it is, not what it isn't. So at least one of your statements has to be wrong."

Edit: Yes, math cognoscenti, I'm aware that triangular circles can exist in certain topologies. I don't really think that's relevant, and you can stop pointing it out.

I first started hearing the words "homophobe" and "homophobia" in the early 80s (which, I believe, is when they were invented), and they never made much sense. They _should_ have meant "people who fear homosexuals/homosexuality" but clearly they were used to mean people "who hate homosexuals to the point of going around 'fag bashing'" As if the word they really wanted was 'mis-homoist' or something like that.

Of course the word makes some sense if one believes in the pop psychology trope that people who are hostile towards someone invariably are so out of hidden fear, and I am fairly confident that those who coined the word did believe this. Though it's possible the confusion was deliberate, to score propaganda points by belittling the opponents (calling them cowards, implicitly). Besides "homophobe" rolls off the tongue more easily than "mishomoist."

Loving strange food or: how I learned to stop being picky and love food:


Like most Americans, I used to hold some self-evident beliefs about food:

The three dogmas of the food phobiac:


There are foods I “like” and foods I “dislike” and I ought to stick to the things that I like.
The better something tastes, the more unhealthy it must be and vice versa. You must choose between a long life of disgusting food or indulge yourself and die early.
There is a value hierarchy for all the edible parts of any animal. For example, top sirloin is the ideal for beef. There’s a similar value hierarchy for animals themselves. Decisions about which animal and which part of the animal to eat are therefore a simple cost/benefit equation.

Two things completely changed by attitude on food: getting married, and moving to China.

The psychology of taste

Our perception of taste is closely associated with our memories of things such as the taste of past meals, our emotional states, and sensory associations with similar foods. We come to associate foods with sensory reactions based on many factors such as familiarity, the quality of most meals, the people we were with, etc. By dissociating taste as such from negative experiences we can learn to appreciate food for its inherent taste, without emotional baggage. We can learn to prefer the taste of healthy foods by the same process.

Sensory integration therapy for food phobiacs

The first step to fixing food phobias is to recognize the problem: it’s not OK to exclude foods because of food sensitivities. All the “most hated” American foods are delicious when prepared properly. Having recognized the problem, here is the program that worked for me:

The strategy is to gradually introduce foods in different settings, gradually building exposure and positive associations with certain foods. For example, when my wife learned that I hated zucchini, she gradually introduced it into my diet starting with small amounts balanced by other flavors, and growing to having zucchini be the dominate ingredient. Here is what she cooked:





Stuffed peppers with zucchini and sausage
Potato and zucchini frittata
Roasted vegetable meatloaf with zucchini
Grated zucchini topped with marinara
Lasagna with zucchini noodles
Zucchini gratin
Zucchini latkes
Zucchini fried in butter with onions
Parmesan crusted fried zucchini


The same program was used for eggplant, brussel sprouts, avocados, cabbage, and okra. Once I learned to appreciate food for its taste and texture of foods rather than negative associations and new textures, it was no longer necessary to disguise the ingredients. When I have a negative reaction to something, I isolate the components of the food (source, flavor, smell, texture) and think about which aspect I reacted to. Oftentimes I react to negative memories and associations and not the food itself. Consciously understanding that a negative reaction has no rational basis is often enough to overcome it.


The importance of ceremony



The ceremonial aspect of dining is very important when learning to appreciate food. If you merely try to inhale as many calories as quickly as possible, any unusual tastes will be an unpleasant distraction. A proper sit-down meal is required to take the time to really analyze the taste of foods and form new positive sensory-conceptual associations to replace the old negative ones.




A cosmopolitan attitude to dining



One of the main differences between the Chinese diet and the Western diet is that the entire animal is considered edible. Whereas Americans stuff everything other than “choice” cuts into burgers, sausages, and McNuggets, the Chinese proudly consume the head, claws, organs, and other miscellaneous parts of animals as delicacies. This is not because they’re poorer – the head and feet are the most expensive parts of the animal. Neither do they restrict themselves to a few “blessed” animals – the entire animal kingdom is on the menu.

The difference is that of the food elitist versus that of the food connoisseur. The elitist believes that only a narrow socially accepted list of foods is good enough for him. The connoisseur is an explorer, who uses his palate as the universe-expanding sensory organ it was meant to be. The elitist lives within the small dietary-social circle he was born into. The connoisseur traverses the biological and cultural realms.

The approach I now take to eating new things now is exploratory one. Instead of responding with “like” or “dislike” I try to understand the flavor components and texture of food. I appreciate meals from many perspectives – sensory, anatomical, social, and historical, to fully integrate it with my worldview.




Note: I have found that adopting a Paleo diet enhances flavor discrimination. For example, a carrot is actually quite sweet and delicious to eat raw, but a typical carb-addict wouldn’t know it.


None of this is to claim attitude alone will make everything taste good. Meals must be prepared skillfully to taste good. The notion I want to dispel is that taste is either genetic or set by undecipherable psychological factors we cannot affect. Human culture has a rich history of many culinary traditions and we ought to learn to appreciate them without emotional baggage or provincial bias.




Original entry: See link at top of this post

I had another idea.

Satire is highly effective and underused except by the political left(John Stewert, Colbert, etc) I realize this would be personality dependent and require a team of extremely skilled comedic writers to not fail miserably, but a newscast making fun of the idiocy on both sides might be a good way to affect some change...maybe it wouldn't be that hard...there's a lot of low hanging fruit in current leftist economic policies. No idea what kind of production value a million bucks buys but excellent writing and acting talent can make up for a lot.

Here is my response.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have Power .... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Indefinite detention is entirely constitutional if the Congress authorizes it for those participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. A U.S. citizen participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government within the U.S. is a rebel. A foreign citizen participating or conspiring in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government from within the U.S. is an invader. There is precisely nothing newly unconstitutional in the NDAA of 2012.

Wikipedia has an article on the NDAA of 2012, which links to an official pdf version of the text of the act. The link is http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hr1540enr.pdf The sections of interest are 1021 and 1022 found on page 265 of 565. Section 1021 explicitly spells out who is a 'covered person'





The black helicopters are not going to come for anyone in the middle of the night to 'disappear' them into a FEMA concentration camp. Even Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building in a paradigmatic act of "domestic terrorism", would not be subject to the provisions of this act. This entire line of attack against the NDAA of 2012 is a Ron Paul/Alex Jones/Prison Planet conspiracy theory bullshit.


The Islamic world is well equipped with crusading moralists. The West's version of a crusading moralist is Lady Gaga. If this goes on, I would not bet on the West.


Oh, so that's the explanation for the existence of Ron Paul and Alex Jones, and the paranoia about the U.S. government coming to kidnap people off the streets! Thanks for that.


This does not take into account conversions. Also, just like other immigrant populations in the past they will form into enclaves and concentrations. So long as the immigrant communities are fortified by a continual stream of new immigrants and two way travel and communication with the countries of origin they will resist assimilation/apostasy. It will be of little comfort that Muslims are only 1% of the general population of an entire country when they are 51% of your neighborhood or nearest city.



“Islam is known to be a religion of peace and does not condone violence and crime in any form," Nigerian Governer Dr. MB Aliyu said in that linked article. Anyone describing Islam as a "religion of peace" is simply lying.

An explanation of the variation between the peaceable and violent Muslims exists in the three stages of jihad.
Text In short, Muslims can be very agreeable when they are utterly outnumbered, become unruly when a sizable minority with some political power, and are insufferable supremacists when they are a majority.

Grames,

Your thoughts on literalism are thought-provoking, as is the passage I hadn't seen by Ayn Rand.
(It fits a general observation of mine.)
"...pretending [the monster] does not exist" is far from my intention.
Whether the very real monster of collectivism, or the potential/real one of 'Islamification.'
Look at the facts: in a country much smaller than the state of Michigan, with population of 7-8 million,
1.4 million are Muslim. Why do most people not even know this about Israel? because those Israeli Muslims
are completely assimilated, since the late '40's.
The nation is right in the thick of several enemies, but these people enjoy the rights and freedom denied
elsewhere; they are happy to be Israeli. (Confirmed personally, by two brothers I know well, and I'm sure also by Leonid.)

In 60 years, barely an 'incident'. Yes, as everywhere, a little social and racial prejudice.

How possibly, in the freest nation (still) can 0.8 % of the population, the vast majority of whom are proud Americans,
overturn the Constitution? How long for such numbers to grow to some 'critical mass'? In that time, those citizens will certainly choose to act against their own 'bad apples', purely in their self-interest. Just as long as they treated equally and evenly by the Law, without being isolated and alienated.
We all have to get used to the notion that every nation has its disaffected - or maybe the completely
insane - citizens. However, the tail doesn't wag the dog...unless we allow it to.

That's my point about fear. Fear is a remarkable emotion for survival. Only thing, it demands instant action,
to run or fight. When - as often- neither is sensible or rational (at that moment), we are frustrated, emotionally.
Then over time, this becomes a state of defocused anxiety leading to subjectivity.
The only options here are either frozen action, or huge over-reaction.

Being aware of, and calmly planning for, all eventualities, without taking immediate action - is a long way from pretending the monster doesn't exist.

I'd be surprised to learn that this experience of Objectivists is much more than confirmation bias, and whats more, i don't believe that the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate. I've experienced this in argumentation with philosophically interested people in and out of objectivism equally but only if you're careful to keep careful track of the context. Ever try arguing with and advocate of AGW without being turned to literature?

Most often it seems to be more the result of youth and especially, a lack of complete(enough) knowledge on the immediate subject. So say for example, if I were a Kantian with my current mediocre familiarity with his writings, and we were involved in a debate, we would very quickly get to a place where I'd have to say, "I am personally satisfied that the categorical imperative is well validated but cannot reproduce his whole argument for you. You'll need to study his works if you have more questions." That, I think is perfectly fair. I'm not Kant after all and people do need to go to the source eventually or you end in arguing and defending what amount to little more than straw men and caricatures of broadly explained philosophical systems. Their are of course more and less politic ways of expressing that, and that would be an aspect of youth and inexperience.

Obviously, if you were dealing with an intellectual defender of the system, they should have their understanding integrated well enough to not need to resort to that kind of a response. That's a bare minimum of due diligence and the least we should expect. At a level of expertise in any field, you reach that point where you are familiar enough with the subject that you are aware of most of the difficult parts and in possession of several ways of resolving them. Seeming contradictions, leaps of faith and whatnot, so being questioned doesn't put you immediately on the defensive. My guess though, is that your basis for judgment consists in large part of what amounts to first year philosophy students with only the beginnings of a fully functional and philosophically mature outlook. Expecting a doctoral level of knowledge is unfair. I wouldn't even do that to a Kantian. If you are talking about Peikoff, or whomever, then I'd need to see the specific interaction before commenting.

As far as the Democrats and Republicans being exempt from that sort of response, I'd not be surprised, mainly because neither have anything even resembling an integrated philosophy uniting their thoughts. Categorizing people is best done with care, and in this case, comparing a political party participant to a follower of a philosophy won't yield useful information about either. Regarding your religious people example, I have had them use that argument, but only if they are debaters and scholars of the subject, rather than proselytizers, which, I'd note, most aren't. A proselytizer's goal is to have you read everything that they have and become convinced but the tactic they employ is invite you with open arms to be in fellowship with them at bible studies and let you take your time to become convinced later. Their purpose is wholly different so avoiding insult or even defensiveness is paramount. Compare that to a young student of Objectivism who finally stumbled across a book that corresponds to their long held intuitions and views of the world. They've read 2 or 10 books and find her views to be immediately obvious and imagine that anyone else who they show it to will be as immediately swept away and what's more, appreciative of being given this leap forward in mental clarity and philosophical justification for what they already are.They have very little of an inclination to convince you and no reason to suspect that incredulity that one would expect if they were advocating eating the metaphorical body of a dead Jew to avoid being cast into fire and darkness, for example.

What those objectivists would do well to realize is that while their primary sense of life view of the world may hinge on justice, a reality independent universe model, fiscal conservatism or something else that jives well with objectivism, someone else may have their whole life view revolving around egalitarianism or subjectivism or any number of other things, so their response to objectivist ideas is anything but an "ah ha" moment.

But anyway, I'd recommend more patience with youth and clearer context based classifications for these sort of informal sociological studies.

I think that your confusion stems from not identifying the fact that Objectivism is aimed primarily at producers rather than consumers. The fact that consumers want an easy way to buy books is barely relevent. They want all sorts of things from prius's and cocaine to brocoli and ipads. Human desire, in general can be good or bad depending on the premises of the individual doin' the wantin'.

To actually produce what is necessary to feed those desires, however, requires long term conceptual thought and mountains of delayed gratification. The desire does not create the technology. The ability of some to move away from "concrete bound" thinking and wait and work for what they truly want rather than what they want in any particular whim filled moment, does.

I understand your concern, totally, and share it. What I can't get my mind around is how anyone could imagine that Obama or Romney or Gingrich would make us so much safer as to justify allowing the wholesale destruction of our rights that they are currently engaged in. Given that the president will be one of few with all of the relevant information, ultimately we have to trust them to make a rational decision on a proper moral basis in regards to it. Paul's the only one in the field who I can judge in this regard since the others are completely unprincipled politicians, at best, and outright liars otherwise. I find him to be generally credible, knowledgeable and sincere and really the only realistic option right now for slowing the damage being done. Regardless of the next 4 years, I'm not really certain that we have survived the last 4 years and shudder to think about which have to be obliterated next....What's left? The 3rd amendment and half of the second? Scraps of the 1st? From where I sit foreign threats to my negative liberties are a minor blip on the screen compared to the aggression we are facing within so he could be a total pacifist and still come off as preferable to the rest of those statist thugs intent on owning me.

Interestingly enough on the same day this was posted, I was making the same case regarding Ron Paul. During his tenure as a United States Congressman he has had a perfect Constitutional voting record. This is important to note because as Commander In Chief he would be bound to his "duties" expressly written within said document. If Congress & the people support a call to war, subsequently voting to declare war, then we're at war and up to this point he has stated that he would lead us, win it & get it over with.

It is understandable that most observers have concerns, the M.S.M(in particular Fox) has rounded out a hit job regarding Paul's foreign policy. That said, I have been digging for a period of almost 2 years and his policy decisions are in-line with what I expect from a President. Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate...he's not a John Galt...he's not an Objectivist but from a political perspective he's the only one running for President that is not a collectivist. My opinion is that this trumps almost everything else, we're in the final throws of the collectivist movement vs individualism.

Ron Paul's foreign policy positions explained through the first 17 minutes:

http://www.youtube-n...bed/4JeNIX2x9j8
Interesting discussion here (in all 4 parts too)

I think there may be some errors in his analysis of what is/is not a threat, but his principle is what is Constitutional. His position is sufficiently basic: "If you want go to war with Iran (or take war-like actions against them), make your case to the public and generate the support for a congressional Declaration of War."

If you cannot make the clear and convincing case to the people, validated constitutionally with a congressional vote, that an action is necessary for the defense of United States citizens, then the option should not be to figure out a way to take the action anyway with out clearly legal and constitutional authorization.

You, perhaps inadvertently, made a connection for me that I had not before noticed. You're right in that he was only able to do what he did because he was a man. It was a demonstration of her view of masculinity in its most appropriate context, that is, acting without apology and with full desire, upon a woman. You can, of course, disagree with her notions of masculinity(many do), but I think that is what she was trying to convey.

The building's destruction, I'm surprised to learn that anyone thinks was wrong. He made the realization that his "contract" had been totally violated and the justice system he lived under would not act to correct the wrongdoing, so he took away what he had given them. He took pains to insure that no innocent's rights had been violated and he was fully willing to accept any consequences that resulted. It might be argued that it wasn't sensible to risk, throwing his life away in prison, but the demonstration was that his sense of integrity was inviolable and allowing that monstrosity to continue existing would be an injustice he couldn't tolerate. If we lived in a world where just men weren't cowards, than that bastardized building would not likely have been built in the first place, but that's not the case, so it was and he had to act.

The fact that any brute can destroy a building doesn't mean that men who are not brutes ought to never destroy one. Which seems to be your same thought process with regard to the "rape" which, I would guess, stems from a mind-body dichotomy on these issues. That force and brute strength, as such, is wrong or amoral at best. Ragnar made the point that answers it best when he explained what happens when brute force meets force with a mind behind it. Force and action and masculinity all have their place, but never disconnected from the mind. I have no reason to think that Roark banging Dominique or blowing up the building was anything but, intimately connected to his mind and really his highest values.

In my life, I've found that a person grows more (or less) attractive to me based on what I know about them -- what is true more fundamentally about their character -- and less based on simply their physical appearance.

I'm not Avila, and don't mean to speak for him in response, but I can't imagine a woman so beautiful that I would want to be with her if I simultaneously considered her to be stupid, immature, manipulative, deceptive, etc. I can't imagine that I would continue to find her attractive (which, to stress, is more than simply "good looking"). When I think about the costs that being around such a person would entail -- the stress of it, the uncertainty, etc., -- it makes my blood run cold.

Does this relationship make you happy? When you describe your confusion, your frustration, it doesn't sound like it... but you'll know better than anyone. Anyways, if it doesn't make you happy, then what purpose is it serving your life?

Please tell me that you realize the irony of judging the whole group of South Africans as one unit, in light of the title of this thread?

I suggest the Ludovico technique.

Question 1:

Here's something that I think gets missed often by those who use these questions to test Objectivism: If you construct a hypothetical situation in which every option is a horrible one, and the philosophy the question is meant to test is a rational one, then that philosophy will tell you to do something horrible. This is not a mark against that philosophy, but a credit to it, as it represents adherence to reality.

Challenge anyone who implies that philosophy should be able to turn dog poop into ice cream.

So you think that a pro-liberty individual with a significant posting history to that effect is an advocate of a system which hasn't existed for more than 20 years now, because he lives in South Africa? I suppose it's possible to assume he's a bigot, but then again, it's also possible that he's a true victim of racism who is far more likely to have had experiences which you could learn from if you could manage to tuck away your defensiveness for a moment.

After all, since apartheid has ended the new black ruled socialist state has taken away the farms and given them to few politically connected blacks(nearly all of them now failing) which collectively has turned south africa from a food exporting nation to an importing one. They've released thousands of prisoners(murderers and terrorists larely) and unleashed them on the white population. Mandela called it a "gift to South Africa" I think. Crime against the remaining white farmers goes almost completely unresponded to, not least of which is the more than 50,000(the true number is much, much higher but the police force is immeasurably incompetent) rapes every year that make it the rape capital of the world, or the more than(at least) 20,000 child rapes that occur each year as these thugs use children in these horrible ways. The large number of infant rapes are especially sad since they often die in the act. Of course, that's probably a blessing since this child raping epidemic is largely an out growth of these savages mythical belief that sex with a virgin will cure their aids, which is rampant and spreading quickly through rape. Because the police do not arrest the rapists, it's not uncommon for the same rapist to rape the same woman on multiple occasions. A national past time is to gather together 12 of your closest friends, kidnap a young blonde girl, give everyone a turn and then leave her for dead. sensible people would leave and in fact many have but most can't due to immigration laws and many who have, have since had to return because the their jobs were lost changing their immigration status.

So that's a small part of the world he lives in and what true racial hate looks like. You can read all about it if you would care to make a more informed opinion My guess, if I had to make an assumption about whynot's character based on his culture, is that he's quite courageous and has endured some difficult things personally, or with people close to him. Things which build character and provide him the wisdom to realize the futility of trying to defend himself morally from your utterly and completely unjustifiable assumptions about his character. of course, I've never been to South Africa and haven't met the fellow personally so I'd rather withhold judgement.

Dreamspirit,

The way you have reacted to other's well-meaning (and generally wise) advice on this thread, and on the one regarding your boyfriend, suggests to me that it is highly likely that "racism" is NOT the real problem here. You come off as brittle, angry, and thin-skinned, and based on that I'm guessing you've done a good job of alienating people around you. That's the problem, not your last name.