Roark4Prez2112

I have been thinking about sexual fetishes, in terms of their ethical status. Are they moral or immoral? Why or why not? Clearly, what gives pleasure without infringing on anyone's rights is morally acceptable. But is there something wrong with the sense of life of those who like strange sexual fetishes? Are they evading reality in trying to distort the standard sexual practice? "Bukake," a group sexual activity involving self-stimulation in a social context, has recently come to my attention [via my unfortunately often immoral cohabitant at college]. My opinion is that this kind of vile abuse of the sexual facility constitutes depravity, but I am not sure. Please help me with this strange topic.

I would like to opine about the film Kill Bill, the namesake of this thread, even though the discussion has gone off topic somewhat. This is the most immoral film I have seen since Tarantino's last abortion of morality, Pulp Fiction. The sense of life need not be mentioned - it repulses me, and any lover of reality. Endless bloodshed, evil people killing evil people - what is there for an objectivist to love here? What does it say about values and morals? And how is it Romantic? The concept of "revenge" is only properly used by moral people or nations, such as America is justified in using the concept of revenge against Osama Bin Laden or others of his ilk. Because all of the characters in Kill Bill are depraved violaters of individual rights, none has the right to self-defense or revenge. They all deserve to be brought to justice. The film's premise - that Uma Thurman's "revenge" is morally justified despite her evil occupation as an assassin - is erroneous. Another problem with the film is its disgusting conflation of violence and values. Violence is seen as an end in itself by Tarantino, a form of entertainment and even humor. This is bizarre and unacceptable. Violence is only properly used IN DEFENSE of values, not as a value in itself. I think these problems show the philosophical and moral bankrupcy of Tarantino and his work. I also think they negate any other virtues the film might have - philosophy is ultimately the most important aspect, followed by sense of life, followed by story - all three are sorely weak in this film, and I cannot help but think that Tarantino must hate life to make such malevolent films.

While MinorityOfOne is correct in pointing out that video games have goals, it must be stated that only certain video games are moral. Many evasive games exist, which distort reality and create nightmarish visions of evil. However, there are luckily many morally uplifting games to play. I would mention the Tom Clancy games, such as Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon, where one plays as an anti-terrorism operative. Defeating disgusting terrorism and glorifying America is clearly right and rational, and it makes these games excellent experiences based upon proper philosophies. Other excellent games include the Desert Storm games, especially the recent sequel Back to Baghdad. Evasive, evil games include anything that suggests A is NON-A - in other words, anything that tries to create an alternate reality or tamper with this one. This includes the depraved Final Fantasy games and their ilk, which create "Alternate" universes where A is non-A (ie, "magic" exists) and thus offend reason. Then there are the Resident Evil games, which sickeningly distort reality and suggest that A is B - this world is not this world, but a ghoulish world of supernatural evil and death. The sense of life in these games is also nauseatingly malevolent. Evil games are nothing new. Consider old games like Super Mario Brothers and Sonic the Hedgehog, with their irrational, evil metaphysics. They distort reality with their improbable movements, their surrealistic environments, and their perversion of money (in both games, valuables like coins and rings are COLLECTED, not produced. Do these evaders not understand that wealth must be CREATED?) I suggest the XBox system if one chooses to play moral games. HALO, in which mankind (in a scientifically sound future) fights against evil agressors with dogmatic beliefs, is a personal favorite. Ninja Gaiden is another new game where the protagonist uses his moral judgement to brand evil AS EVIL, and destroy it in the name of values. Plus, the system is created by Bill Gates, one of the greatest American capitalists and producers of wealth. This explains why its games identify A as A and present proper philosophies.

TOC has some of the worst op-eds I've ever seen. Not even in terms of content - their content always just seems like watered down ARI to me - but in terms of writing style. They sound like they're written by middle schoolers (unsurprising considering that the intellect of such evaders as TOC's writers must be on such a level). I think this unprofessionalism is a large part of its decline. Also, most Objectivists want to be associated with the organization that Ayn Rand herself sanctioned (inasmuch as she designated Peikoff as her philosophical successor). Just out of curiousity, does anyone know how ARI is doing? Are their contributions up or down? I would think they would do more if they had so much more money than TOC. Several fools have told me that both organizations are doing much worse than they used to be, but I'm sure this is totally inaccurate. With a man like Peikoff at the helm - as opposed to a pseudo-savage like kelley - ARI must be soaring higher than ever before, and restoring Objectivism's glory.

I take offense to this statement. Beethoven's utterly huge, purely benevolent music should be appreciated by all humans as being superlative. And as far as I'm concerned, you're not a true O'ist if you can't see that. Clearly, your sense of life isn't anywhere near benevolent enough to fully understand the unadulterated glory of things like the Waldstein Sonata and the Eroica Symphony (Symphony no. 3 to anyone who hasn't studied their Beethoven as much as they should) In conclusion, any attempt to deny Beethoven's total greatness is naught but evasion.

They don't have emoticons for that. .....AND this isn't a laughing matter.

Not only would we be justified in bombing North Korea, but we should also bomb South Korea as well for being appeasers. It's because of them and philosophers like Kant that evil exists today. So i agree with Greedy Capitalist, but think he's not going to be solving the entire problem. We shouldn't be dropping a low-yield nuke on just North Korea. We should be dropping a couple of high-yield nukes on the entire peninsula and rid ourselves of the problems that have been escalating since the Korean War. And backlash be damned! It's not America's fault that North Korea continued to be a threat to freedom. We are justified in acting in our own self-interest and need not justify our actions to any other country. If any other country has a problem with out bombing campaign on the Korean peninsula, they can surely expect a bombing campaign on their own asses as well.