RationalBiker

I don't see that as a comparable analogy. The value sought in an extreme sport is active defiance of injury or death. Conquering them, not seeking them out. Yes, accidentally injury or death may occur, but that is not part of the goal sought. The value sought in some fetishes is directly related to the intentional injury caused to "enhance" the sexual experience. Causing pain or injury to the body, or intentionally depriving the brain of oxygen up to the last moment in order to "heighten" climax. That is the difference. Using ecstacy and playing Russian Roulette enhance the life experience or make people "feel alive", but I think both actions can easily be deemed immoral. Or perhaps the value risked (substantially) in those experiences is greater than the value gained. I will grant that I could have been clearer about the health / life risk concept. In OPAR, there is the following passage: I point to the term "destructiveness". Sex is supposed to be an exhalting uplifting experience, a good, healthy experience in celebration of being alive. The act of mutilating the body or depriving the brain of oxygen is a decidely unheathly action which demeans the act of sex. It is for the reason that the aforementioned fetishes would be immoral. VES

Or the way I usually explain what RH says above is: The law should stick to regulating harmful behavior, not mere consumption or possession (when it comes to drugs/alcohol). VES

I don't normally do this kind of post. Frankly, I hope people don't see it as inappropriate or corny or whatever, particularly since I haven't even been a member here for that long. I want to extend my appreciation to the operators and members of this site for creating the environment that I have found here! I participate in several different forums on a variety of different topics from games, to photography and to politics. Most of these forums are battlegrounds for differing opinions which are expressed in a myriad of different ways. Most of these ways have little to do with facts, logic and reality. I can honestly say that the caliber of debaters on this site far exceed those from the other sites based on my experiences so far. If you folks ever want a good laugh, or perhaps a fit of frustrations depending on how you view such things, take a look at the forum at the following web site: www.thepoliticalmachine.com The purpose of this site if primarily to promote an upcoming game by that name that involves playing campaign manager and getting a president elected. (The beta of the game itself is pretty interesting I must say.) As an aside, the forum is offered for those interested in politics to share their views. In other words, the arena is open, draw your swords. There is a CLEAR delineation of folks on the right and on the left in that forum. There are very few people on there who can present logical positions, but at least there are some. Others are almost shocking in the abundant lack of intellect. Now to be fair, I guess you can't expect too much from a forum on a site whose primary purpose is about a game and the forum is just gravy. All in all the place is interesting to a degree, but it makes me appreciate OOF that much more. Now I must clarify, I have a fair degree of respect for the site owner (and game developer), Brad Wardell. He provides a couple of products over there you won't find elsewhere, at least not at that level of quality. He has quite definetly taken on a lot of work developing software and operating the forums, as well as presenting some thought provoking articles on the forum. Alas, I myself could stand to learn more, and strengthen my ability to present positions. At times, I could take a little more time before responding to formulate a better response. This place encourages me to do those things. And it appears to me that the errors I may commit along the way can be constructively criticized in a manner in which I can understand. I find that I value this site and forum far more than any of the others overall. And I definetly have to resort to the dictionary far more often while here! Thanks for expanding my vocabulary. So again, thanks all! VES

You needn't be sorry and I'm not attacking you. I hope maybe I'm challenging you, which is another way to learn. VES

First, let me clarify, I'm not trying to make you hate. My efforts consist of attempting to explain why I think you shouldn't just automatically dismiss it or demonize it. Hate, like any other emotion, is contextual. You appear of have this notion that just because someone is capable of hating (and recognizes it) that they obsess about it and do nothing else. Hatred, and acting upon it in the right context is natural and moral. Hating someone killing the sister you love and acting upon that hate as an example. That does not mean you have to continue to obsess about it afterwards. Likewise, taking the attitude that "stuff happens" and going to cook a meal while someone is killing your sister that you love is quite a different matter. I have personally been involved in several situations where my life was in imminent danger of ending. This is an "extreme" circumstance. I think about losing my life that I love, my son's life and experiences of having to grow up without me, my wife's love, and a multitude of other values which can be gone at the whim of an irrational person. "Extreme" emotions and actions / reactions in "extreme" circumstances are quite normal. However, while hating the person, I can't lose sight of the fact that I must remain calm, clear and level-headed (for the most part) in order to survive some of these situations. Then there are other circumstances upon which rage is the only thing that will save you in a tooth and nails fight to the finish. You may not seek this experience, but it may find you when your not looking for it. At any rate, I needn't go on. There are factual and historical examples of why hatred is or was a proper emotion and basis for subsequent response. You can learn from them, or you can wait to experience them. That is obviously your choice. VES PS: BTW, I can't help but point out the irony of you nickname in relation to this topic. Ambivalence is frequently misidentified as not caring one way or the other. In fact, it is quite the opposite: Ambivalence: The coexistence of opposing attitudes or feelings, such as love and hate, toward a person, object, or idea. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. The morality involved is whether or not the activity is destructive to your values. For instance, a person with a sexual fetish that involves cutting themselves or burning themselves. Or to a greater extreme, auto erotica asphyxia. If the fetish puts your health or life at risk, I don't see how it could be moral. VES

Another good option Betsy. VES

I don't need to provide that example, because you have stated your theory but you haven't proven your theory. Your sentence above starts as though you are challenging someone to provide an example that proves what you are saying, not provide an example that challenges what you are saying. I don't even think you can even prove that more knowledge (but less then ultimate knowledge) coincides with more likelihood to be moral. Again, I don't think your theory of mistakes holds water. VES

Controlled anarchy? That's a self-contradicting concept. VES

As RH points out, having faith or "believing in something" is different than recognizing facts and reality. I don't have to have faith to know that gravity will exert force on objects released from a height. I'll go out on a limb here and guess that what you are trying to say is that you believe people must seek a means to understand what is going on around them, why they are here, and where they are going. Man wants to know his purpose. The problem that is identified by Objectivism is that some men quest for this information by way of irrational methods. That is why "faith" is (symbolically speaking) a dirty word around here. Having "faith" is trying to know something or answer something without proof to support the conclusion. You are not in the crowd of the faithful in this forum. VES

In my mind, the driving around the car activity is usually NOT about the driving around in the car. It's about the social interaction between friends. It's like when a group of people go bowling, skating or any number of other activities. The activity is secondary to the social dynamic involved. With regards to computer games, I don't believe the setting makes the game evil. The mission or the objective might, but not the setting. I think the setting may only be problematic if the game (or game producers) were trying to pass it off as being reality. Since I'm intelligent enough to recognize it's just a game and that I shouldn't base any of my morals or ethics on it, I don't see the problem. I value the games simply as entertainment, nothing more. VES

I definitely have to disagree. People cheat because they see short term value gain and / or they don't think they will get caught, and they know it's wrong. This is evident by the actions they take when caught such as flight or fight to preserve their value of their own life. They don't misunderstand the value of knowledge, they choose to ignore the value of knowledge. Mistakes preclude intent. Without intent, there is no moral accountability. This does not stand to reason. VES

What fact establishes a need for faith? I dont' need faith, I need reason. I think you are in the realm of opinion with this statement, not fact. VES

In most cases the officer is part of the chain of command for such suit. When you talk about following procedure you also get into the officer's training ( which then falls vicariously on the shoulder's of his training officer, his supervisor, his training division and ultimately the chief). There are other factors as well that may exclude the officer from being solely responsible for error in procedure. Generally, most folks in that chain will (or should have) kept documentation which demonstrates that they trained the officer properly or gave proper instruction, disciplined other officers for similar infractions, etc. etc. This frequently occurs and puts the brunt of the fault right back down to the officer. You are probably correct that it is rare that officers are successfully sued because usually their actions have to be grossly in conflict with procedure and all of those other parties have to ruled out as well. The flipside to this is that I'm not sure how much more you can "tighten the noose" before officers are too paranoid to address legitimate crime. There's a fine line there. The fact that pay isn't usually that great also results in not always getting the best candidates for the job. It's nice to think that people get into police simply because of their desire to change the community for the better, but more and more frequently it's just another job to people. In my 18 years on the police department, I would say this is among the most significant changes I have seen regarding incoming employees. I won't even get into problems with hiring processes. As far as officers prosecuted for crimes, it depends on the severity of the crime, and the willingness of the victim to prosecute sometimes. Generally, for lesser crimes (serious misdemeanors), the officers are frequently given the ultimatum resign or be indefinetly suspended and prosecuted (if the victim is willing). In a recent (in fact VERY recent) case in my department, two officers resigned after being accused of "double dipping" for over a year. In layman's terms, they were on duty but clocking in on another off duty job at the same time. In this particular instance, the victim is ALSO prosecuting them for embezzlement. In another case a couple years ago, an officer got off duty and then broke into some woman's home and raped her. He had been to that woman's house earlier in the day during his shift. He's sitting in jail right now, thankfully, and should be for quite some time. I think more police officers are prosecuted for crimes than you might think. But then that may be relative to how many actual crimes police officers are committing, and how many of them remain undetected. Well, complaints are pretty much it, it just matters most where you lodge the complaint, and unfortunately how many people lodge complaints. It could be possible that if you had enough information you could go to a magistrate and attempt to swear out a warrant for an alleged violation. I can't estimate your chances of success taking that avenue. It may also be possible to report the violations to a higher policing authority, say county police/sheriffs or state police. This would most likely result in referral back to the offending agency however. Reporting to local politicians is another option, a mayor, city councilman, etc. Your best option as I see it, would be to involve lots of people, perhaps a civic league, in reporting violations EVERYTIME they are observed, to the department AND to the politicians. But as with many ventures, the solo voice will likely be ignored. That said, I will offer the possibility that at least some of these violations may be due to responding to crimes which require rapid response, but use of the sirens or lights might alert a criminal you don't want to alert because you are in close proximity. There's a fair chance the law and / or the police department policy addresses this situation. I hope this helps. I can empathize with your frustration over the hypocrisy and concern for dangerous behavior from those you should be able to count on. VES

Being more or less likely to go to war doesn't establish whether the right decision is going to be made when the time comes. War may well be the correct response to a threat so how is "less likely to go to war" going to help anything? I'm not sure which is the greater mistake, to let the action be carried out, or to go to war prematurely. The difference as I see it is a matter of who takes the initial casualties. VES

I'm not sure I have the total answer to how a law can be perfected to prevent mistakes resulting in legitimate grievance and / or subsequent compensation. Any discovery or acquisition of knowledge almost invariably involves making mistakes beforehand. This is particularly unfortunate when it deals with making mistakes with people's liberties, but what method would you suggest is a foolproof method of acquiring knowledge without the possibility of making mistakes while also considering that you may let a person go about inflicting mass casualities? I can't see any other way than reviewing each case on it's own merit. Each crime is committed in a different way though they all met certain general elements. Also, criminals learn to circumvent the law when it becomes too specific. DUI laws are notorious for changing yearly in my jurisdiction, and I suspect in other jurisdictions as well. Is you solution to let them commit the crime or terrorist act first and then take action just so there can be certainty? I'm not being facetiious when I ask that. VES

You beat me to it Betsy, but with a better wording. VES

I knew a guy once who said, "I don't believe in the authority of the United States over my person." My response was, "Okay, then you can also choose not to believe in the bars of the jail cell you may sit in." Reality is not affected by whether an individual believes in it or not. And the reality in this case is, there is an emotion identified as hate, and actions have been taken as a result of that emotion. How can you ignore that and not believe in hate? My suggestion, without trying to be insulting, is that you don't have much value for your own life. If you were to allow someone to take dominion over your life and control your actions by use of pain or death, I can't see how the proper response would not involve an emotional reaction of hatred unless you have little to no value in your own existence. VES

That was pretty much what I was thinking. It's not the emotion which is judged. It would be the action taken in response to the emotion which would be subject to moral judgement. VES

One I shot while in NY. Statue of Liberty http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/624/...61_copy-med.jpg And another building in NY http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/624/...72_copy-med.jpg Hope they are useful. VES

I thought it was a good price. The seller has sold several copies before and the feedback he got for selling previous copies has all been positiive so I'm assuming that they aren't illegal or poor copies. Thanks to GC and the Speed Reading thread, (grrr.. ) I found out just how slow I read. Fortunately, my reading comprehension score was high. This translates into AS being a long venture for me.

I probably won't wait, but I appreciate the reply just the same. I will still read the book even after seeing the movie. VES

Actually, I have not read the book yet, though I own it and it is on my short list. I'm reading AS right now. (And I don't read fast at that) Borders has loved seeing me walk in the door lately. I'm depleting their Ayn Rand collection. VES

Great! I'm looking forward to viewing the movie. VES