DonAthos

This discussion seems to turn on a different understanding of Platonic love than the one I have.

In my use, Platonic love is a situation where interest in sex is eliminated from a relationship, being found unworthy, or to somehow "cheapen" the experience of the emotion of love, or something like that.

That does not mean that when one experiences a full romantic love for someone else, including sexual desire, that one must act upon that (i.e. have sex with the object of one's affection), otherwise he is acting immorally. It only means that we do not praise sexless love as an ideal, or seek it out. I believe that Rand is trying to demonstrate the unity of mind and body as expressed through love.

I have a close female friend, and to the extent that I "love" her, I find her sexually attractive. In other circumstances, I would certainly pursue her romantically. But she and I are both married to other people, and I know that to act on my attraction would be the sacrifice of a great many peoples' happiness, not the least of which being my own. Our relationship therefore could be described as "Platonic," in that it has no acted-upon sexual component, but my *affection* for her is not Platonic. She is an attractive woman to me, mind and body, and I respond to her accordingly, mind and body. The fact that I choose to act as I do is not destructive to my life (i.e. immoral), I believe, but is in my rational self-interest.

It's not to your point, so I'll only note for accuracy's sake that not all insulting language (if that's what you mean) is ad hominem. Here, my identification that useless verbiage is useless verbiage (or "impotent" if that's deemed more pleasant) is not the basis for any kind of argument, actually.

But moreover, on being "down" with what I said, aren't you? 'Cause I don't mind saying that I'm tired of the vision of "morality" which would hold that folks like Nicky can be as insulting as he chooses, and the right thing to do is to never call him on it, or reply in kind. If that were a policy that we enforced here -- if polite discourse were the norm, and expected, and required -- that would be another thing altogether; I would simply delete 95% of Nicky's posts (even when I agree with him on substance) and be done with it. But I'm over replying to him on the issues and getting kicked in the crotch for it, and that goes for everyone else who does that same sort of bs, too.

Aleph comes in and tells me that my point is "moot"? I'm supposed to pretend like that's worthwhile? Valuable? Friendly? Anything other than a waste of space (at best) and an insult, at worst? Pretending that things are other than what they are is what is moot, and I'm not going to pretend any longer, for anyone's sake. If someone comes up and offers garbage like that, they need to hear about it. Moot my ass.

I also think it's a rapidly proliferating problem.
 
I think it's actually a reaction against altruism, though.  Altruism is THE dominant moral philosophy; a child growing up anywhere in the world today would be hard-pressed to find any alternative, at all.
And altruism is antithetical to joy or pleasure; it's all about pain.  Note which of your friends blamed capitalism.
 
And note that it almost invariably goes hand-in-hand with some reference to mortality; "live for the moment, THIS moment- there isn't any other".
 
Philosophy, specifically morality, is the framework that provides some context by which man can choose and plan his long-range goals.  But what if the only morality you know demands that you choose nothing selfishly, do nothing antisocial and be willing to part with anything you earn?
 
My pet theory is that this specific phenomenon you've mentioned is sort of a desperate cry for life, REAL life, in a world of death-worship.  I think it's the result of an implicit rejection of all philosophy, as such, which is caused by an implicit rejection of altruism (to someone who thinks that altruism=all morality).

I think it's a mistake to try to sort out specific questions of "too broad" or "too narrow" at this stage in the discussion, when there isn't yet agreement on more fundamental matters. It would be like fitting a man for a noose before his murder trial. And I don't see, in any event, how we'll find anything at the root of the answers we give but people's whim, though perhaps that's my bias showing. For if I'm right about IP -- as I believe that I am -- then the application of IP is bound to be a mess of arbitrariness and rationalizations...

But okay. Let's indulge for a moment, since "reason" is such a thoughtful reply to Harrison's question, and see whether reason holds that "the piano" should be patentable, as such, or whether that's "too broad," as often claimed.

Hmm...

Do we think, when the "piano" was first invented, that it was immediately understood to be the herald of some new, broad categorical type of instrument, such that a patent over "pianos" would be judged "too broad" and disallowed? Or is it likelier to have been considered some "specific" instance or development of previous musical instruments?

Let's look at Wikipedia on "the piano" (under #history):
 
 
All right. So, armed with this knowledge, what seems likeliest "in reason"? That "the piano" stood immediately as some broad category of new instrument, such that it couldn't be patented, as such? Or regarded as an incremental improvement upon earlier technologies -- a specific blend of harpsichord and clavichord -- and fully patentable? Why shouldn't Cristofori own "the piano"?

Interesting to note, too, that the article picks up later, saying of the spread of the piano:
 
 
It's too much for me to try to sort through all of this right now, and especially when doubtless there are many hidden details to the actual history, but I think it's interesting (and potentially illuminating) to compare this abbreviated tale to the discussions we've had about blueprints, reverse engineering, and so forth. I think it's at least conceivable, given certain proposed IP schemes and arguments, that we could regard the above as some great injustice. A big mess of "copycatting" and parasitism. (In fact, maybe even the invention of the piano itself was a parasitical act, as Cristofori "stole" so many ideas and innovations from his forebears.)

It is amusing to me to think that with some stricter (and maybe more... consistent?) application of IP, the piano itself might have died some obscure death, or maybe never have been invented at all, just as Nosferatu apparently should have burned at the stake completely.  If Ayn Rand argued that too much IP would throttle production, as I maintain that she did, perhaps we may still yet manage it!

Let's not go too far here. Kevin's advice is bad for most of the reasons given in this thread and others, but absolutely there are special actions that you should take on a date that you wouldn't take for one of your guy friends or just some random stranger.  You  treat your date as special because he or she is special, to you.  She isn't special because she's a woman, she's special for all the reasons that led you to ask her out.  Now how you express that is more open; you could go along with social conventions like holding the door and paying for her meal (assuming you set up the date), or not.  If she finds those sexist, that's fine, the point isn't to follow some rulebook, but just to communicate that she is special to you, not because she's a woman but just because you like who she is.  Treat your date like a 'special case' because she is.  That means going beyond just courtesy stuff that you'd do for a stranger, because she means more to you than a stranger does.  I'm speaking from the male perspective, but this goes for both sides of the date.
 
Now, some of the stuff recommended above can be used to convey to your date that she's special, and others I just don't see.  Picking the table, for instance, seems like a pure dominance move.  In the broader sense, taking the time and the initiative to plan out a date and set it up beforehand is a nice thing to do for your date (man or woman), but picking the table first?  I just don't see that, or the "no touching in public" thing.  Wow.  Now, not ignoring your date during the meal, having a two-sided conversation, and opening the door for her (if she doesn't mind that) all seem like sound advice; not because of some leading man framework, but because of both common courtesy and the fact that you should go beyond common courtesy on a date.

The Case Restated
 
For sometime, I've been casting around looking for another way of stating my essential case.  For it seems that, despite all of my efforts of communicating that case, I have not yet done a very effective job.  This, then, represents another go:
 
Imagine two men: Heathcliff and Garfield.  Heathcliff invents and builds the first instance of the "mechanical pencil sharpener."  One day, Heathcliff is walking down the street, sharpening pencils, and Garfield observes him from across the way.  Garfield thinks this is brilliant, and immediately sets to work to 1) understand how such a thing might be possible and 2) build a pencil sharpener of his very own, that he might also sharpen pencils so efficiently.
 
So now we have two men and two pencil sharpeners, the latter of which we will dub Pencil Sharpener A (being the one constructed by Heathcliff) and Pencil Sharpener B (constructed by Garfield).
 
The question before us is: who owns these pencil sharpeners?
 
I contend that Ayn Rand has outlined two different approaches to such property that result in contradictory answers to this very question.
 
Here is her first argument:
 
 
By this reasoning, we answer the question in the following way:

Pencil Sharpener A, being developed of some material element or resource and requiring human knowledge and effort to become of its particular use or value (in that it is now a pencil sharpener), is private property. And this is so by the right of Heathcliff, being the man who has applied the knowledge and effort to create this property. Pencil Sharpener A belongs to Heathcliff.

Pencil Sharpener B, being developed of some material element or resource and requiring human knowledge and effort to become of its particular use or value (in that it is now a pencil sharpener), is private property. And this is so by the right of Garfield, being the man who has applied the knowledge and effort to create this property. Pencil Sharpener B belongs to Garfield.

However, upon writing "Patents and Copyrights," and in the name of "intellectual property," Ayn Rand made a case that results in a second, contradictory answer to the very same question. Here is her second argument:
 
 
By this fresh reasoning, we now answer the same question in the following, dissimilar way:

Pencil Sharpener A, being the first embodiment of the idea of "the pencil sharpener," as such, was brought into existence by the mind of Heathcliff. Since the value of Pencil Sharpener A was thus created by Heathcliff, whose idea is rightly protected by law, Pencil Sharpener A belongs to Heathcliff.

Pencil Sharpener B, being an unauthorized reproduction of Pencil Sharpener A, does not belong to Garfield. For it was not the physical labor of copying, as performed by Garfield, that provides the source of Pencil Sharpener B's value, but the originator of the idea of "the pencil sharpener." Pencil Sharpener B, being the second embodiment of the idea of "the pencil sharpener," as such, was brought into existence by the mind of Heathcliff. Since the value of Pencil Sharpener B was thus created by Heathcliff, whose idea is rightly protected by law, Pencil Sharpener B belongs to Heathcliff.

I hold that these conclusions are contradictory, and that the arguments that demand these contradictory conclusions are likewise contradictory. I further hold that we have every reason to prefer the first argument to the second, for the following reason(s):

The second argument (i.e. "intellectual property") relies upon a mind-body split. It is not the case that a "mind," of itself, brings property into existence -- and thus, a "mind," of itself, has no "property right." Property, properly conceived, concerns only "material values." That is to say, only "material values" may be property, as Rand demonstrates here:
 
 
And the production of material values requires both mental and physical labor, as shown here:
 
 
Thus we are wrong to discount such physical labor as "copying," or to divorce the property that results from such physical labor from the man who has performed it. We are also wrong to suppose that Garfield's labor is solely "physical" as opposed to "mental," for such strictly "physical labor" is impossible. In both cases, Heathcliff and Garfield have each performed mental and physical labor, together. In both cases, their labors have resulted in some material value, which is property. And in both cases, it is right that each instance of property belongs to the man who has performed the labor required to bring that property into existence, that man "being the man who has applied the knowledge and effort to create this property."

Thoughts?

Absolutely -- that is not in contention.
 
 
I'm sure that they wished that they had. Or maybe reserved some part of their budget for bribery (if they didn't).
 
 
LOL! All right, you've got me there...

Though, on the other hand, I would submit Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (TV not film.)

"In society"? So pertaining to what, law, work, that sort of thing? But in contrast you think that it's improper for an individual in an "interpersonal relationship" (meaning one-on-one?) to deal with another as an individual first? We rather should deal with each other, first, as "members of a class, group, or sex"? So... maybe the problem I'm having in understanding your arguments is down to the fact that I don't know your ethnicity/nationality, your age, your socioeconomic status, etc...?
 
 
Shall I be explicit?

There is nothing different between what you routinely do and any garden variety bigot. You blend well-worn stereotypes together with some number of observations you've made about some of the people you've known, doubtless accounting to the bias of looking for that very thing to begin with, then pretend like it's some general rule, and dismiss out of hand any supposed "exceptions." You reject calls for evidence or proof or rationale, simply asserting that you know what you know... somehow! And then you call into question the character of anyone who questions your methodology or your conclusions.

So you claim to know what women are really like, despite the protestations of women who say that you're wrong about them, and other men whose experiences do not match your own. Brilliant. It's no better than those who talk in the same sorts of terms about what the homosexuals are like, or the Jews, or any other group you could imagine. You've pulled opinions out of your ass and pretend that you've found truth. The fact that this is bigotry is almost besides the point; it is a crime against reason.
 
 
If no two men are masculine in exactly the same way, and no two women are feminine in exactly the same way, and some men are masculine in such a way as to seem feminine, and some women are feminine in such a way as to appear masculine, then...

Then maybe there isn't one size fits all advice that applies to a gender. Maybe we would need to deal with individuals as individuals.

It’s often difficult to challenge your own entrenched beliefs. Habits of thought die hard, particularly when your values or way of life seems to depend on those beliefs. (“But but but… XYZ must be true!”)
When confronted with challenging new ideas, I try to approach them carefully, so as to avoid any knee-jerk emotional reaction in favor of my existing beliefs.
Ideally, here’s what I do: I remind myself that I don’t need to agree or disagree right away. Instead, I focus on understanding the ideas and arguments fully. Then, once that’s done, I take some time to mull over those ideas — perhaps days, weeks, or months. I gather empirical evidence for and against the idea. I consider new angles, arguments, and implications. I discuss those ideas with smart people, as they often have fresh insights. Finally, I come to a judgment about the truth of those new ideas.
If I take that time, I’m far less likely to err in my evaluation — meaning, to dismiss right ideas or embrace wrong ideas. That’s a win!
But… uh… of course, that’s not always what happens. Yet even when I have that dreaded knee-jerk reaction against some new idea, I can exert my better judgment: I can choose to evaluate it objectively. If I have to eat crow at the end of that process, that’s better than persisting in dogmatic commitment to falsehoods.
Note: I published a version of the above commentary in Philosophy in Action’s Newsletter a while back. Subscribe today!


Link to Original

I'd prefer not to jump into this topic with both feet, but just to clarify: Arab is not synonymous with Muslim. Muhammad here is not expressing equality among religions or religious followers, but ethnicities.

Actually, this kind of statement could fit easily within the "maneuvering" under discussion, as, in some senses, it opens up the whole world for Islam's eventual spread. Christianity needed to come to a similar conclusion as it developed, as to whether Christ's message was for the Jews alone, or also for the Gentiles.

This isn't unusual for you or anyone else who has a set of ideas they value. No one likes being told that everything they believe is wrong, and everyone's ideas are ridiculed by someone. 
 
  Ridicule is an act, a piece of drama, used to manipulate those with these kind of insecurities. No one wants to be stupid, gullible, or evil. So the person who engages in the ridicule will convince themselves of having knowledge, and then proceed to act as though your ideas contradict what they know to be true in such an obvious way that it would produce amusement.
 
  These people are really motivated by the fact that they themselves know very little about the either the ideas they are ridiculing or the ideas they are defending. The only fact is that Ayn Rand threatens their system and ethical beliefs and they can't have that. So, not matter if it is true, they must convince others that Ayn Rand was a drug addicted, serial killer loving, cheating, cult leader who hates poor people but loves social security checks and whose main followers are insecure and pretentious teenagers. 
 
 In reality this is the exacts same kind of hate and ignorance that conservatives have for conservatives have developed for Karl Marx or Mohammed. They don't know anything about the ideas but they are so threatened by them that they must find the easiest way to dismiss them. No matter how hysterical, hyperbolic, unfair, hypocritical, irrelevant, or just untrue the attacks are. 
 
  In the end, it isn't your responsibility to defend a set of beliefs that you haven't verified independently. That tendency is what creates the dreaded "Randroids". Ayn Rand has some really good ideas, but reading her books isn't enough, you need to understand them through your own personal efforts. In the end you may not agree with the whole of the philosophy, but I would rather have people who disagreed who knew what they were talking about rather than people who did agree and did not know what they talked about. 

Let us begin with our position on religion. Thomas Jefferson said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." That's about how I feel about it, too, and I suspect that you and I are not too different in this.

And I don't question the pernicious actual effects of such religion, or mysticism, in that it leads (of its nature) to murder and every other evil, just as you say. "Tyranny over the mind of man" is the royal road to tyranny in fact. So yes, it is true, "strong words" are needed at times. And more than that? Force is necessary, too, when it is used in self-defense and in justice.

But when we're looking at specific situations, like this thread on this forum, and when we speak of "justification," I believe that we must examine the widest possible context that we can. This conversation takes place on a board that is designed for rational discourse and inquiry on Objectivism and its application. Or at the least, I have concluded that this is how I would like to see this board used. Such "rational discussion" needs a certain environment in which to flourish, and if I have any role as a member on this board, it is my desire to help create/maintain that environment, as best as I understand and am able to do.

So with that taken into consideration, is it true that Harrison was "absolutely justified" in saying something like "you stupid pig"? Does that promote the kind of discussion we hope to have here? Does it help Harrison to communicate his ideas? Convince those who might initially be opposed to his position? Another way to look at this is: suppose Ayn Rand had opted not to provide any arguments for the philosophy she was developing, or even written novels to convey her thoughts, but instead simply denounced and insulted those who disagreed with her? Would we be here, now? Would she have better satisfied her own goals? Would we associate Rand with "reason" (let alone have been able to refer to a collection of her essays as "The Voice of Reason" with anything apart from withering irony)? No. The voice of reason has a particular sound to it, and I believe we should endeavor to achieve that sound so long as our methodology is convincing people that we know the truth on one or more matters. I believe that it is the appropriate means to our ends, and is that which is truly justified.

That said, is there ever a good reason to call someone a "stupid pig"? Yes, I think so. I do not equate rational discourse with martyrdom, and God knows there are people here who will insult you for nothing but having the temerity to disagree with them. They deserve to get as good as they give, and in the most extreme cases, they deserve to have official action taken against them. In the present case, I think Harrison's anger is at least understandable, and RedWanderer is largely responsible for the provocation and hostility he's brought to the thread. Harrison's outburst did not come from out of nowhere. That's why I simply ask for everyone involved here to mind their rhetoric, so that perhaps we can recapture the spirit of rational discourse.

But I can't agree that "being religious" is itself warrant to descend into name calling. At least not here. Not when we wish to discuss ideas and promote the cause of truth.

Indeed.  But I think that you are also in favor of government, so far as I can tell. 
 
 
We can only hope! 

Well... I shouldn't presume to speak for you, but so far as I can tell you consistently argue in favor of law and order -- subordinating "might" to "right," and specifically by reserving force to reprisal.

I believe that this constitutes a belief in "governance" generally (and Objectivist Politics, again more specifically).

Your positions put you into conflict with belief in a "monopoly" government, but over the course of our discussions I've come to believe that this aspect is not necessarily an essential aspect of government, as such. After all, there is no "one world government" (as yet), yet we would hardly say that the world is therefore in a state of anarchy. There is quite a lot of "archy" to go around. The United States has its own governmental power split numerous ways across what we call "checks and balances" (and further still, with state, county and local structures, and etc.), yet we would not say that the United States is therefore anarchic. I believe that your position may possibly be cast (and fairly) as a further "balance."

I think that if you're agreed that the initiation of force is to be eliminated from society, that you are in philosophical agreement with Rand's Objectivist Politics (obviously excepting her believing that a monopoly government is proper, and follows, insofar as she did). The particular organization of that government is perhaps more properly "political science," though we can say that the organization must be consistent with the essence of the position. Just as a proper government must be funded without coercion, neither may it maintain its "monopoly" on retaliatory force through coercive means (which is to say that it has no particular monopoly).

By adopting "anarchy" for your views (and though there may be historical precedent for this; you would certainly know better than I), I think that you're conceding that governance and a monopoly of those activities are fundamentally inseparable. I think it's a "package" that needs to be unpacked at the least, to see if that's really so.
 
 
I appreciate and acknowledge that I did intend some rhetorical meaning in asking you where the government gets that right, if not from the individuals which comprise it... but honestly, I was "saying" less than asking. I really want to know your thoughts on that matter, because I think it's one of the central matters of this discussion.

We contend that the individual has the right to self-defense. We contend that such individual rights are inalienable. We contend that a proper government comes from the inalienable right-to-self-defense of its individual members...

And therefore the governed individuals lose their right to self-defense; i.e. that right is, by some arcane process, alienated?

Something here does not add up.
 
 
On the face of it, it seems hard to conclude that a person should not be allowed to "defend his own rights" in any manner in which they need defending. Indeed, if you "have rights," but are barred from forcibly defending them or preserving them, under penalty of law, then... in what sense do you "have" them in the first place? (By permission?) And how do we then say that these rights are not granted by the government, when we are acknowledging that the government has the power (from some unknown source) to set the terms by which these rights are preserved or defended, if in fact they are.

If these rights are mine, per my nature and for the purpose of my own end-in-itself life, with or without the government's say-so, then why should I comply if the government tells me I am not allowed to defend my rights? Why should I grant such a position any moral authority whatsoever? And how is this not the essence of statism?

I'd have to imagine that the argument for government, or for monopoly government, or for whatever position you're putting contra "anarchy," relies upon the idea that it is a better defense of the individual's rights than otherwise. Meaning: the individual will choose to delegate his right of self-defense to an objective proceeding, because that is ultimately a better protection for him, as an individual (in that it will help to establish to others that his use of retaliatory force is, in fact, retaliatory and not the initiation of force). Not that he is metaphysically stripped of his rights, but that he is making a choice (which, I would further argue, suggests that he could potentially choose otherwise, and sometimes should).

After all, this is what Rand had to say on the nature of government (from, appropriately, "The Nature of Government"):
 
 
Though perhaps by "consent," Rand meant that "no consent is necessary, and no dissent possible" and by "inalienable" she meant "semi-inalienable," and by "rights" she meant "suggestions."
 
 
I appreciate your use of the word "vengeance" -- it speaks to my love of drama -- but we might also supply the word "justice," and perhaps with... uh... greater justice.

There are many ways I'd like to approach this topic, but let me just start here:

If we agree that a government can administer justice in an objective manner, according to its procedures and so-forth, then why is that same objective administration of justice unavailable to anyone else?

Meaning: could not a "vigilante" court perform the same function as that which we're otherwise calling the "government"? (Though I would argue that, properly conceived, this so-called vigilante court would be an equally proper government, so long as it is dealing in objective justice.)
 
 
Well, if we believe that the objective administration of justice has requirements (like a "jury of one's peers," or specific rules of evidence, or what have you), then "Objectivist vigilantes" would be equally beholden to those requirements.

But if someone followed all of the requirements we would demand of a proper government (which potentially could include recusing one's self in a matter in which one is personally involved), then I do not see why someone should not be allowed to "take matters into his own hands."

That may not be the sexy Death Wish style vigilantism that we initially imagine, but my interest is in taking seriously the idea that no individual (and by extension no group, government included) ought to initiate force against any other.

Ah yes. The story that tries to focus in on a single aspect while ignoring the full context within which the aspect takes place.
If the progression of time is ignored while focusing in on the distance, or the limited discrimination of perception is ignored while the focusing in on the precision made available by the language of mathematics, does the paradox that seems to arise reveal the futility of rationalization or of the failure to consider the full context?

Argh.
 
I find all of these floating topics on gender and sexuality so very frustrating.  But listen, IA, to you or anyone else -- if you'd like to establish that homosexuality is morally wrong, I don't think it should be very hard to do.  All that I'd ask is that you take the following and run with it:
 
"Homosexuality is morally wrong, because for a man to have sex with other men will necessarily destroy his life in the following ways..."
 
Ideally you complete that sentence with all of the ways in which such behavior will destroy the man, and then offer proof for your claims (or at least plausible-sounding argumentation).  And this is the pattern for anything else, as well.  If a claim is being made for "masculinity" vs. "femininity," then I'd like to see how acting in masculine fashion is necessarily better for a man -- how it benefits his life in the same way that, say, being productive does -- and how to act contrary to this is a self-destructive course.
 
Because that is the point to the Objectivist Ethics.  It is not a game whereby we all strive to tell one another how to live (let alone to tell someone that he is somehow using his penis incorrectly).  It is rather a tool that a man uses to try to live the happiest, best life possible.  A homosexual Objectivist would also like to be as happy as possible.  And if you can make the case that his homosexuality is getting in his way, and is courting pain, unhappiness, death, I am sure that such a man would listen to your well-meaning suggestions on how he can live better.
 
But if you cannot offer that?  If it seems like you're just making pronouncements on how "things ought to be," not to improve anybody's life exactly, or specifically, but just because you've come to some general conclusions based on the shape of the vagina, or the proportion of man's musculature, or something?  If it seems like you have no specifics to offer by way of proof or reasoning?  If you can offer no actual roadmap by which a homosexual Objectivist can improve his life?  And if it seems as though to take you seriously would make such men much less happy and fulfilled in their actual lives?
 
Then the best course is to treat you (or anyone else making similar presentations) as someone who does not actually understand the Objectivist Ethics, but who instead tries to use it to smuggle in his own vision of "how things ought to be" without regard to actual human happiness, or reason, or reality.

Argh.
 
I find all of these floating topics on gender and sexuality so very frustrating.  But listen, IA, to you or anyone else -- if you'd like to establish that homosexuality is morally wrong, I don't think it should be very hard to do.  All that I'd ask is that you take the following and run with it:
 
"Homosexuality is morally wrong, because for a man to have sex with other men will necessarily destroy his life in the following ways..."
 
Ideally you complete that sentence with all of the ways in which such behavior will destroy the man, and then offer proof for your claims (or at least plausible-sounding argumentation).  And this is the pattern for anything else, as well.  If a claim is being made for "masculinity" vs. "femininity," then I'd like to see how acting in masculine fashion is necessarily better for a man -- how it benefits his life in the same way that, say, being productive does -- and how to act contrary to this is a self-destructive course.
 
Because that is the point to the Objectivist Ethics.  It is not a game whereby we all strive to tell one another how to live (let alone to tell someone that he is somehow using his penis incorrectly).  It is rather a tool that a man uses to try to live the happiest, best life possible.  A homosexual Objectivist would also like to be as happy as possible.  And if you can make the case that his homosexuality is getting in his way, and is courting pain, unhappiness, death, I am sure that such a man would listen to your well-meaning suggestions on how he can live better.
 
But if you cannot offer that?  If it seems like you're just making pronouncements on how "things ought to be," not to improve anybody's life exactly, or specifically, but just because you've come to some general conclusions based on the shape of the vagina, or the proportion of man's musculature, or something?  If it seems like you have no specifics to offer by way of proof or reasoning?  If you can offer no actual roadmap by which a homosexual Objectivist can improve his life?  And if it seems as though to take you seriously would make such men much less happy and fulfilled in their actual lives?
 
Then the best course is to treat you (or anyone else making similar presentations) as someone who does not actually understand the Objectivist Ethics, but who instead tries to use it to smuggle in his own vision of "how things ought to be" without regard to actual human happiness, or reason, or reality.

Productivity isn't really a commandment to build and make in the tangible sense. All it really means is that it is virtuous to be an active thinker, since it brings about the things that are good in life. Being busy all the time is not the point of productivity. Active use of your mind is productivity, trying to achieve values, that can be rightfully called productivity. The opposite would be sitting around apathetic, hoping values will fall into your lap. One way to be productive is to further a career, but other values worth achieving for you may be travel to foreign countries, learning to paint, understanding why Socrates philosophized as he did, etc. There really is no particular limit. Perhaps your hobbies are plenty productive, but relaxation time is great, too, in the sense it maintains your well-being anyway. Thinking is often productive too, even if you're not making something like a building. Intellectual endeavors are just as legitimate as concrete ones - it's just a matter of what kinds of values you want to pursue, and which values you discover on the way.

Studying language may not result in a physical creation, but it makes all sorts of new values possible or more easier to attain. Traveling in foreign countries is a great way to  use language. Or there is studying linguistics: language background only helps. You don't even need to go to that degree. If you like languages, just study them. You might not discover what you want to do with your knowledge until later. You can't predict the future, so you probably don't even need to justify learning languages.

Personally, I do not like assigning a "purpose" to values other than to further my life. There certainly are values that help achieve an end, but from my own experience, a lot more is uncertain. So, you want to learn some languages? Great, tell us about that! If you start studying a language and become good at it, that will bring pride and self-esteem.

To know the meaning of the negation of an assertion is to know the meaning of that assertion.

The phrase "is as near as makes no matter" concedes that an assertion and the negation of an assertion are not identical, but that one is easily formed from the other and assumes 'the meaning of' an assertion and its negation are also easily known.

The logical law of the excluded middle tells us an assertion and the negation of the assertion are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, so to know the meaning of an assertion is to also know the meaning of the negation of that assertion because everything which is not the meaning of an assertion is included within the negation.

Much in this. A significant aspect of reason vis-a-vis religions is that "man cannot live by faith alone", so the longevity
of religion has been dependent upon a large dose of rationality mixed in. It almost seems that the larger the mystical
elements, the harder one has to work at maintaining them with reason.
OK nothing new - the contradiction is all theirs'. However in the interim, believers in the ancient religions individually
gain something important in my eyes: they find character.
I see or seek character before I know a person's explicit convictions.
Let's not forget that Objectivst virtues are not monopolized by O'ism. Character is a direct result of the basic virtues,
prized explicitly and consciously by Obectivists - but gained implicitly by experience and thought by anyone else as well.
Honesty and integrity are the key indicators to me of virtue, followed by productiveness. All exist in spades within the religious.
If rationality is - lets say - 'limited', by the person's over-arching faith, it is still very apparent.
I'm repeating earlier sentiments when I say that in the main, I have often found common ground with those religionists
(not too often extremists) in our reciprocal respect for the truth - which I rarely find with secular 'progressives'.
Where we diverge radically in belief, has somehow not been important.
 
But, as we know, "nobody's watching" in the end. The contradiction is theirs', but for partly the wrong reason, religionists
gain admirable qualities I can't dismiss.
Perhaps I'm going by my own experience, and others have their own contrasting one.

The fraud and the dynamiting are two separate issues.  On the subject of the fraud, Roark realizes and admits that he was wrong to engage in it and pass off his work as Keating's.  This is part of his character progression; he initially doesn't see the harm in helping Peter, he feels sorry for him, etc.  However, by the end, he has made this realization:
 

 
Roark begins the novel with a mistaken premise and an inadequate understanding of the consequences of helping Keating in this way.  The progression of the novel then illustrates, to Roark and to us, the consequences of this error.  In this respect, it's much like Rearden's initial flawed approach to dealing with family obligation: the events of the novel illustrate to him and to us the error in his thinking.
 
The dynamiting is not a deliberate error Rand is using in this way.  Rather, it is a powerful aesthetic statement about artistic integrity; Roark takes the only action possible to him that will protect the integrity of his work.  The dynamiting and the fraud serve different purposes and are used in different ways in the novel, and must be analyzed differently.

Congratulations. I hope you get the values you are looking for, and make the most of it.You'll never, ever be able to compute things at the level of detail you ask. You are born into a country where voters have decided on using force to hold people back from all sorts of economic activity. You did not design this system: a majority of taxpayers support it. The system forces you to comply to all its rules. By its nature, the system is designed to take from all sorts of people in all sorts of ways, and to give to all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. People who receive "tax breaks" or "subsidies" or "child credits" or "free schooling" or "college loans" or any of the various handouts are thus made to feel like beggars and moochers in a system they do not want, and where they have no choice to say: "I don't want your shit... don't take any of mine". If your education gets you to a point where you thrive financially, your fellow voters will take their pound of flesh, and more... and hope that you give it with guilt... because without their help you would not have made it. Don't fall for the gimmick.
Take every dime of government money you can get legally, and if you have no use for it, donate it to an organization that fights for individual rights.

You're trying to evaluate him by comparing him to someone who follows a set of absolute rules. You're saying that he failed to follow the rule "don't get on trains without a ticket", but did follow the rule "look for a job". 
 
But morality is about choices, not commandments. The moral ideal is not someone who follows all the rules, but someone who makes the right choices whenever he is faced with alternatives. The so called "rules" are just context dependent consequences of more fundamental philosophical principles. 
 
The question is, did he make the right or wrong choice, by getting on the train? I think it's a pretty easy question (yes). While it makes perfect sense to always abide by the rule "don't get on a train without a ticket" in normal, everyday life in a free society (because it is the selfish thing to do), it makes no sense to try and import that rule into his context. Instead, one must make the moral evaluation of his choice, given his options, based on more fundamental principles. 

I did no such thing, you are attemtping to change the meaning of the entire book.
He and his friends retired to a small bit of private property and yes, only certain people were allowed to enter their private property.
They left the outside world to the looters. If the looters had changed their ways and become rational and productive they would not have destroyed themselves.

And one of the biggest points you seem to be willfully ignoring- John Galt did not "come back to take over"
He stayed in the outside world to watch over and protect the woman he loved.
The looters who you think he should have sacrificed himself to save
stalked and followed Galt out
assaulted and kidnapped Galt
imprisoned and tortured Galt
attempted to enslave Galt
and in fact, tried to force Galt to take over

This is why none of what you are saying makes sense. He tried to avoid them. They came to get him.

I'm not here to speak about "libertarianism," but what you've said here reminds me of my own introduction to Rand. She was being name dropped and dismissed among certain of my acquaintances as being brilliant-but-wrong with outrageous claims. I decided that I should investigate her claims, and her reasoning, for myself by going to the source.

I didn't respect those people who, at the time, were content to dismiss her without first seriously considering her ideas (or honestly even understanding her ideas), nor did I take it seriously when they would claim to understand her ideas without needing to read her presentation of them. I still don't.

Interest in respectful discussion of Objectivism and its implications or its applications are enough to make this forum a good fit for people of any religious persuasion. You were presented with someone who disagreed with you and with the choice to either convince him that you are right or to attempt to run him off of the forum. Do you think you made a good decision?