buiq

In the John/Joan case, the answer is yes that different brain biology does influence behavior. As chronicled in the book, the child was dressed as a girl, provided toys typically for girls, and raised as a typical girl. This child did not like any of the feminine clothing and prefer playing with toys typical for boys. The child was much more aggressive than the girls attend school with and often involved in fights...etc. He preferred physical activities much more than other girls. Interestingly, the boy preferred to pee standing and this horrified the family and teachers. The child never felt that he was a girl despite the efforts from the parents and Dr. Money's treatment. The "not fitting in" was as a result of the knowledge of something was wrong as you states was not the case. The child was raised a a girl and everyone treated him as a girl. There was no out side knowledge provided to him. Introspectively, the child knew something was wrong but did not know why or what caused this feeling. It may be of interest if you read on the John/Joan case or the book on David Reimer. It is a good book. The Boy raised as a Girl: As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto Harper/Collins, 2000. As an aside, in the mid 1960s and early 1970s, the feminist movement used Dr. Money's published articles that claimed gender assignment was a success as a platform for their cause. Currently, the gay community use the same case and others (because of the failure of gender assignment) as the basis to argue that gays are born that way.

In discussing genetic determinism, are you aware of Dr. John Money's research on the famous John/Joan case? In 1965, the parents of twin boys brought their children to a doctor to have the boys circumcise for they had phimosis. The procedure went wrong and one of the boys penis was burned so badly and it could not be repaired. Subsequently, the parents saw Dr. Money on TV and took the child to see him at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Dr. Money persuaded the parents to raise the injured boy as a girl. He reasoned that nurture and not nature determines a child's gender. With his twin brother, this was a grand opportunity to study sex assignment. To make a long story short, the injured boy was raised as a girl, received hormonal shots...etc but never accepted the intended sex assignment. The injured boy grew up did not fit into society as a girl. He attempted suicide three times. Finally, he abandoned all treatment. Many years later, the truth was told to him. You may read a brief story of him at the link below. A book was also written about him. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/reimer/ The point I am trying to make here is that biology does exert a significant force in behaviour, especially in this particular case, sex assignment. The boy was raised as a girl but never accepted the assignment of his sexual identity. With that being said, I do not agree that alcoholics or obese people should blame their alcoholism or obesity on their genes.

Hello: I have just begun reading Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Has aony read this and what is/are your thoughts on this book? Thanks Q

Hi: The same-sex marriage debate here is quite interesting. If I may add, the opponents of same-sex marriage ignored the Equal Protection and Full Faith Credit clause. The U.S. Supreme Court consistently ruled that the Full Faith and Credit Clause require each state to honor the court judgments of other states. Also, marriage laws are under the jurisdiction of the state. It would be interesting to observed whether the amendment proposed by Bush would be ratified by the states. Q

Hello: I do not know if this topic has been discussed before. If it has, please pardon me. I am interested in your thoughts and opinion regarding a particular psychological condition: Conversion Disorder. My appology for the lengthy quote (This is from Emedicine.com. I do not think I have violated copyright of Emedicine-If I do, I request the moderator remove my quote.) Do you think the rationale to explain Conversion Disorder by psychodynamic theory and learning theory are valid? Thanks Q

Stephen and Tom: Thank you.

Hello: In evolution, it is not the strongest that survives nor the weakest. It is the most adaptable to the environment survives. Base on the above statement, the environment then essentially affects the behaviours of the individual or group. The individual or group cognitively behaves one way or another to adapt to the environment to survive- B.F Skinner's point of view. Rand objected to behaviorism. Could you tell me where I can obtain her writing on the subject of behaviourism? Thanks. Q

Hi: Yes, I understand that religion relies on faith. However, as I have asked, at time zero, what happened? The mathematical explanation (I have read) could not answer the question. Before the Big Bang, what was there to create the Big Bang? Without knowing, are we to go on "faith" that there was something that created the Big Bang? I am interested in your thoughts. Q

When I am dead I will feed the maggots and worms. Q

Hi: I would like to know your opinions on this topic. Scientists and others refute Creationism for may reasons but one of the reasons is that "something from nothing" is contrary to the laws of physics. Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory and later it was "confirmed" by Hubble. However, at "time zero" or "singularity", supposedly, the mathematical model that explains the Big Bang theory disintegrates. The mathematical explanation implies that the Big Bang is probable and only that. Probable. IF (I am no mathematician) this is true, at time zero, something came from nothing and create this universe? IS creationism and Big Bang theory are similar? I am not saying that they are the same but similar. I am very interested in your thoughts on this. Q

Hello: I thought that I have ended the debate by conceding to the point of views of many here. However, I DID ask you for a solution which I do not see. Instead of offering one, I am being warned for being Intellectually Dishonest. I do take this seriously for it an attack on my character personally. This is the first time ever that I am being call as such. However, I also find it amusing at the same time. A friendly debate has lead to this. Let me say it clearly and LOUDLY, I DO NOT and have not LIE or DECEIVE anyone here at all. I have quoted Rand directly. If I have misquoted her, please point it out. IF I have taken her quote out of contex, please specifically point that out. Now, I have not read all her work and referenced the ones I have read. On any particular position (especially taxation), if she had clarified herself elsewhere and I have yet read it, please provide the source so I can find it and read it. I have no problem with that at all. However, claiming that I am intellectually dishonest is being DISHONEST. On the other hand, calling some one a liar, a rapist, a murderer, a looter.....for supporting Public Health is acceptable. That is a leap in logic yet tolerated. Attack someone on a personal level is acceptable? A friendly debate should remain a debate. Assuming and only assuming, If I had taken an opposite and unpopular position to fuel the debate and I do not tell you so, is that intellectually dishonest? As an aside, one should be reminded that despite holding a philosophy one must see the practicality of it. You and I objected the taxation system yet we still pay for it. How many, because of one's philosophy and conviction, has risen up to defeat the taxation system? (April 15 is coming near). None I say because we are here instead of jail. (AND I agree with y_Feldblum's opinion and that of Rand's quote). I came here to debate, have a little fun, learn....etc. Someone states that Objectivists may not have to be open minded but an active one. I agree but want to add that both may be needed. An active mind so ridgid would never learn. I hope that my mind is both active and open. For the short time being here, some you you (not all) have given me an experience similar to those when I debate with religious fundamentalists. An disagreement with the opinions of their leaders one would be labled as blasphemer and threaten to becasted out. I have remain polite, cordial, and I say pretty pleasant despite the hostility directed to me. Anyway, I am curious do you all found me to be intellectually dishonest? I hope not. Q

RadCap: First of all, let it be clear on one thing. I have no intention to smear you. I suppose my attempt to be light hearted failed. So, if you perceived that I smeared you, I will say it here that I did not mean to do so. I have conceded that public health should be financed on a volunteer basis as others have suggested. Never said that ideally I would behave one way and when the situation not ideal I would behave differently. My question was only to ask for a solution since we do not live in an ideal situation, especially the taxation system. I did not make any other impication with that question. I agree. Yes, you are correct regarding "Appeal to Authority". That is an error in my on my part: Just because some one say so, does not mean it is so. I should be more careful the next time. And, just because Rand was hostile to others as you have cited, it does not mean you should per your "Appeal to Authority" reasoning. It is true that I have yet read ALL Rand's work. However, you are incorrect by assuming that I have quoted her "flippantly" or dismissively. I have stated the above and you regard it as a lie. This is a direct quote from Rand. "The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing-how to determine the best means of applying it in practice-is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicible. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today-since the principle will be practicanble only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions" Rand did state that the principle of voluntary government financing is complex and did defer it to the field of law. I did not make this up nor have I been dishonest. Rand also stated that it is premature to apply the principle of voluntary government financing and only in a truly society, meaning IDEAL. We are not living in the TRULY free society as described by her. So when I ask you and others for a solution recognizing that we are not living in an ideal world, you think that I endorse rape, murder, steal.... Through out this discussion, as I have mentioned, I conceded to yours and others' opposition to the taxation system to support public heath, my "pet project." I am perplexed to your hostility and your level of civility. You, me, and others will agree on many issues and disagree on many issues, but we should not forget to be civil in our exchange of thoughts, though may it be flawed. I believe that we have exhausted this debate and I do thank you all, including you RadCap. Q

I do not think after I deposit my sperms into a woman there would be a switch. OR there is one that I do not know about? Q

Hi: Regarding active or passive euthenasia, by choosing not to act is an act? Q

Hi: I have read through all the posts and find the arguements for and against abortion are very interesting. If I may add. Responsibility (not duty) was not mentioned much in this discussion. Knowing that having sex may lead to pregnancy, people chose to have unprotected sex. That is a conscious choice. Rand have stated " The obligation to keep one's promise is one of the most important elements in proper human relationships, the element that leads to mutual confidence and makes cooperation possible among men.... The acceptance of full responsibility for one's own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it by surrending to what they believe is easy, automatic, unthinking safety of a morality of "duty." They learn better, often when it is too late." Causality Versus Duty So, a pregnant woman (and the man who participated in the process) decided to have an abortion would abandon moral discipline, surrending to that which is easy, automatic, unthinking...... Rand supported abortion but would she consider those have abortions to be escaping from their responsibility? Q

Hello Richard: I think you should read what I wrote before saying that I am not informed. This is what I said "That man was charged for two murders not one." I am not aware that this has been discussed before. I will end here.

Hello: My asnwer is NO for all of the above. I have never or have any intention to RAPE, MURDER, ENSLAVE, or STEAL from anyone. If I have done so, I would not be sitting here freely converse with you all. In doing the mentioned I would have violate others rights and I have no desire in doing that. My life is valuable thus I do want others to be immunized to prevent me from getting it. It is for survival and self preservation, physically and economically. I have said this numerous times and have accepted that the ends do not justify the means. I do not see the contradiction in this at all. Ok, how about this rationale. Public Health is "the public interest" of individuals like myself wanting to preserve our lives from communicable diseases thus support Public Health. It is common a interest of individuals. Now, I have stated YOU have object public health programs on the basis that it uses tax money. I have accepted your position. My only question is how would the voluntary tax system be carried out? You have not answer this question. My life is valuable to me and is not subjective. This is a reality for all human (exept for those nutty enough to want to kill themselves). We all value our lives. This is definitely an absolute for it is real. It is not my feeling, intution, or my dependency on you to know my life is valuable. So, to PROTECT my life I support Public Health and concede that, IDEALLY, it should be done on a voluntary basis. But, we are not living in an ideal world. So what would you propose in an unideal world, for we must be cognizant our REALITY and not a supposed or a wishful world that we want to live in. BTW, the framer of the Constitution explicitly authorized the federal government to promote and provide for the general welfare (in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8) and to regulate commerce. With this, the federal power slowly evolved in the area of health. Many subsequent Supreme Court decisions have broaden the federal authority by determining that additional powers are implied in the explicit language of the Constitition. The Constitution grant authority to the federal government to regulate international affairs and interstate commerce, this has allowed the government to concentrate its efforts on preventing importation of epidemics and assiting states and localities, upon request, with their periodic needs for communicable disease control. Rand praised the founding father of the US and the constitution of the US. Did she forget this portion of the constitution which you object? , Frustrated? Do you not find this is fun and intersting? I think so. I have learn quite a bit ,actually, from you and others. I am sorry that you feel frustrated and becoming slightly hostile. But you should not. Remember what Rand said about hostility. It is "caused by a profound self-doubt, self condemnation and fear, hostility is a type of projection that directs toward other people the hatred which the hostile person feels toward himself. Blaming evil of others for his own shortcomings, he feels a chronic need to justify himself by demonstrating their evil, by seeking it, by hunting for it-and by inventing it." Ok. So how do you think this can be done on the voluntary basis and be practical about it. Rand herself did not offer a solution to this but defer the practicality of voluntary taxation to another field, law. Thank you for answering my question here. I am glad to know that you did not reliquish your own ideology to conform to a collective and that would contradict individualism that Onjectivists hold value to. So, must I subscribe to her entire principles to be an Objectivists? What if I disagree with her, let say abortion- would I still be an Objectivist? Like those believe in the Bible, they cannot selectively believe only portions of the Bible but must believe in all of its content? Is that how it work? Oh, no problem. I enjoy this discussion with you and others. Alright, I think we have beat the dead horses to death? Is that the way to say it? Thank you all. Q

Hello: I understand that Rand believed that an embryo is a "clump" of tissues and only has potential, thus does not deserve any rights. Recently, I have heard in the news that a pregnant woman (a week to her due date) was shot and killed along with her unborn child. That man was charged for two murders not one. Do you think that he should be charged for one or two murders? Q

Hi: I do think it is valuable to preserve my life. Having others contacted communicable diseases would not be beneficial to me for it can affect my life. Ok, here is where you can educate me. Is preserving my life is a subjective value? No, I have stated I do not support enslaving anyone or wish to so so. I have accepted that the ends do not justify the means in previous posts. I have accepted Marc K.'s position that Public Health Programs should be financed voluntarily but I do not know how this will work in "reality". According to Rand, Attila value represent man of force. To achieve his goals he destroys his opponents physically and take whatever he wants. His power is essentially fear. Attila would oppose to free trade of goods, services, and ideas. Am I correct or I have misunderstood Rand? I do not oppose to free trade of goods, services, or ideas. Regarding Public Health, I do see that it provide a "value" from its services. Now, I have accepted that using public money for public health would be opposed by Objectivists. I, as an individual, is responsible for my own well being and dependent on no one. I have done so before I ever discover Rand and continue to do so. I also do recognize that "no man is an island" in the sense that their existant can affect me. There are others who share this planet and their ill health may affect me. For my own well being, as in the case of Public Health, I do support Public Health initiatives to improve population health. I have learned from your posts and others that Objectivists would support Public Health but on a voluntary basis only. You pointed out that I am selective regarding taxation for public health. Alright, I'll buy that! Ok, I have two unrelated questions to ask you. 1) You oppose to taxation regardless of what the money is used for. By that, you opposed taxation altogether? 2) Did you, prior to reading Rand's work, have an ideology of your own or you have abandon your own ideology to that of Rand? ------ May I make an observation after being here briefly. The responses to my query are very similar. Is it because the nature of my question elicits similar responses or Objectivists' view is narrow and rigid? Objectivists espouse individualism but in order to be an Objectivist one must "conform" to the "collective" to be one. To disagree would automatically be rejected from becoming an Objectivist and possibly be considered as as less than capable. Is this an incorrect observation? Can Objectivism philosophy be practised widely? If possible, Objectivists would allow each individuals to have his or her own belief system, even though it may be not be the same, for Objectivism value the individual. Or all must adhere to Rand's principles in order to practice her philosophy widely? Please educate me!!!! I hope I did not stir up a hornet nest. Q

Apprentice: Oh, I question everytime I get taxed for something I do not think have any "value" to me. I am frustrated with the tax system as much as anyone. I do not trash capitalism. Contrary to your belief, I like capitalism. I am self-employed and run my own companies. I earn much more money under capitalistic system than under any other system. As an aside, I escaped from a communist country and do think capitalism is much much better than any other form of economy or government. I chose Public Health specifically as a topic to discuss with you all because I perceive that Public Health has value. Value to whom? To me. I do think that by immunizing the public, including those not able to afford it, is in my best interest (but it appears that you do not think so). I do not want to live in an environment with sick people. I may die. I understand that you have rejected Public Health because it uses public money. Yes, I do sense your frustration or hostility from this discussion. This discussion has been very educational and informative (at least to me). I do thank you! Q

Hello: Thank you for your posts. It is possible am. However, to undertsand or to get out of that "statis" mode, I am here. If I was brainwashed I would not be here to discuss this matter with you all. I have stated, those people who contract diseases may affect you and me. Public health programs can prevent that from hapenning. Because public health uses public money thus not acceptable by objectivists regardless of the positive outcomes. This is what I have learned from your posts. Thank you. Your answer has satisfied my query. The point I was trying to get to was there is "good", or as you put it "value", in providing immunization from those who cannot pay for it. I do undertand your objection from the present state of the Public Health System because it uses tax dollars. If permissable to ask, how effective would the voluntary system be in financing public health? That is fine. As long as the hospility is not personal, I am Ok with it. I do agree that should my opinion, query, ideas, logic are flawed, you have every right to question it. I do not feel uncomfortable at all by asking for your opinions. You are right, I should be clearer. Epidemiology,a method that I mentioned, was first employed by John Snow in the mid 1800 and continues to be used today. Pasteurization idea was discovered by an individual not by government. These methods are used in the public health settings and do not violate (sorry for the bad spelling on the last post) property right. I am aware that at the NIH, CDC, University research programs use tax money. I disagree with you whether NIH, CDC are needed or not but I will stay on topic. I do understand that tax dollars are used in Public Health. I am not disputing that at all. It it precisely because they use tax dollars to provide programs for the population that I have brought this subject here to ask for your opinon. I have stated numerous times that public health programs have "value" (I am borowwing Mac K.'s word here) in society and individuals but these programs use tax money which impinge upon individual and property rights. Marc K have explained that there is value in these programs but these programs should be financed voluntarily. . I am not refusing to look at reality at all. Agreeing with Marc that these programs need to be financed voluntarily. But in "reality" I wonder how this can be accomplished? I have taken the position that Public Health programs do provide benefit to the population including all of us. However, because these programs use public money, I wondered what Objectivists opinions are. You all have answered my question. I do not ask you to suspend your moral or ethic. I have enquired your opinion on a subject mater that I view to be beneficial but against the Objectivist principle. I originally have asked Onjectivists to reconclile the benefits derived from Public Health programs yet these programs use public money. Someone have stated that there is nothing to reconcile. It does not really matter the good comes from these program because the money used is public money. Oh, I do not claim to be an Objectivist just because I read Rand's Books. I need to understand and comprehend her work much more before I would claim myself to be one. Surely. Yes. I accept that the ends do not justify the means. However, I wonder how Public Health can be carried out on a voluntary basis. In 1999, the federal government spent 29.2 billion on public health agencies. This figure does not include state and local expenditures. Q

Hello: It appears that there is an element of hostility here. I hope that I am wrong. Alright. Knowledge applied is "the true cause of the longer, healthier lives". I Agree. Yes most discoveries are from individuals. I do not dispute that neither. Yes, it is individuals who discover methods and means to treat or prevent diseases. I completely argee. What I am saying is that Public Health is population-based and it employs methods and means that discovered by individuals. As far as I know, the method of surveilance (epidemiology), education prevention...and so on have not vilovate any property right. Ideas were not stolen, so far, but these institutions do use tax money for the benefit of the population. Do you not see that the functions of the CDC, NIH..etc are needed by individual citizens and can affect their interests directly? As I have mentioned that comminicable diseases do not disciminate. They can affect us all. If by the rational that there is no "good" coming out of forcing peole to pay tax for services that they do not want. Each individuals should have the right to exercise that. So, for those individuals decided not to be immunized, they can affect my rights, my self interests, my right to live, how should those people to be dealt with? Would you suspend their rights because they exercise the right not to be immunized? Alright, the concensus is that as long as money used not voluntarily then all "good" comes from it is "evil" BS? Hardly. I am here to understand Objectivists point of views. Although I have read most of Rand books I do not claim to understand all. I am here, as stated on the original post, to understand what I see as inconsistancy or misunderstanding on my part (or hers?) of her concepts. It is for this reason I am here to ask, to debate, to learn. If I do adhere to the Robbin Hood mentality I would have no shame to admit so. I do not. I have earn everything I own and never accepted a handout even when I was destitute. Please do not assume just because I took a position during a debate that I ascribed to such position and live by it. If I may comment, I found that in this debate or discussion I have learn quite a bit about "Objectivists" views, especially Public Health. I hope I can continue to do so on other subject matter. I am glad that I have participated in this discussion. It was fun and educational. However, I am slightly disappointed in that I detect some hostility. Q

I too do not adhere to the Robbin Hood philoshophy. However, in the Public Health matter, it is diffrent in the respect that if the population is not cared for, they may spread diseases. Let assume that there is no public funded Public Health initiatives or programs. All public health programs would be initiated for those who can afford it say a section of a city whose residents are weaththy and are Objectivists. Other parts of the city would not have such services. Do you think that those who do not have the Public Health services such as immunization, clean water...and so on would not affect the people in the wealthier section of the city? Is it not in the self-interest of the Objectivist to have the whole city immunized? I do not dispute what you stated. What I am saying is that Public Health institutions have improved population health and in that respect has improved your health, either directly or indirectly. Preventing others from having a communicable disease would improve your health. Preventing you from catching it. And, these institutions uses public funds. Is it not in your best interst to have everyone immunized so that YOU will not catch that particular disease? Yes, it is NEVER ethical to steal. I do not disagree. But you and me are benefiting from the work of the NIH, CDC, public Health Departments whose operating budget come from tax money. I must go now. I will reply as soon as I have some time. Q

Hello Concerto of Atlantis: Yes, that is I am trying to do. I want to know if anyone would admit some good stems from Public Health. I do not ignore or hide the fact that the money used in public health is tax payer money. Some paid unwillingly and I have stated so. Based on your statement, Public Health Institutions such as NIH, CDC, HEalth Departments...etc are "evil" regardless of the good it provided. Oh boy. I have provided the definition of Public Health. I do not mean public health as socialize medicine. Q

Hello Richard: I do not want to debate whether the statement that public health contributed more than medicine in improving human health because no one is willing to check the fact. But if interested, please verify this in the text book i suggested. Or better yet, go onto PubMed and look for public health articles. (BTW, I am in the healthcare profession and do have respect for medical advancement and that of public health). We agree on 1) Regarding 2) I did not make the assumption that no one pay for it. Some of us pay for flu vaccine every year. However, some do not get vaccinated and infects others. Influenza over the past centurykilled millions of people (you can check this fact as well). For example, according the the CDC, Houston, Texas "immunization rate in 1991 was estimated by CDC to be 11 percent. By 1995, Houston had achieved a 74 percent immunization rate according to the NIS. An infusion of federal dollars in 1993, along with unprecedented public and private partnerships increased coverage levels dramatically throughout the country. There have been no subsequent epidemics in Houston and external funding and partnerships have decreased.) Houston's rate last year, 1997, was 64 percent. The most recent survey, 1998, indicated a 4:3:1 immunization rate for 19 to 35 month old children at 66 percent, a two percent improvement over 1997" http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/departme/health/newnote1.htm#immunaization Not all will pay for vaccine because they cannot afford to do so or voluntarily decided not to get vaccinated. When a communicable disease is spreading, those not vaccinated will spread the disease. Death may be the end result for many. It is public funded andnon-profit programs ensure the majority of the public to be vaccinated. Laws have been enacted to make children vaccinated before entering schools. This has reduced rate and incident of infection in school settings. Is this not a positive or "good" thing? About 3) No, it is not good to force anyone to do anything they do not want to. In the case of public health agencies, their program such as immunization has contributed to the improvement of public health despite using tax payer money to provide vaccine to those cannot afford it. Reducing incident or prevalance of a certain communicable disease in a population is not a good thing? I agree with your examples. I do not want to pay more than I have too. If a private company would collect my trash cheaper and efficiently, I would use that company's services. No debate here. Sanitation under the domain of public health has improved human health. In 1854, John Snow, an English man, was the first to use epidemiological technique to prevent cholera from speading. Quarantine of the use of a water well prevented further speading of cholera. His idea of sanitation is now in the public domain. The issue is not whether it would be better if a privately owned company runs the show or not. We agree that it would be better if the government stay out of it. With that being said, do you not agree public health and its policies in its present state, using public money (even though it is unjustified), has improve the health of individuals and population? ====== Hi Erik The sources I have mentioned are credible. What do you suggest? Which source would be acceptable to you? By your rationale, most research articles are not credible for they are funded by NIH (part of the government). At the same time, we should not consider any research result published by companies for they would be promoting their products. I agree with your assertion. I guess this debate has digressed. Q