fletch
-
Posts
549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fletch
-
-
There isnt much to say about it other than it is just another pathetic swipe at Ayn Rand by a man who barely has the intellectual ability to fetch her laundry. I get the impression from Brooks' review that he didnt bother to read her journals, but skimmed a few pages looking for quotes he could use to confirm what he already felt. No one with any familiarity of Objectivism could make the following statement:
Peikoff gets more thinking done during an afternoon nap than most people do in a week. I dont think there is any such thing as an unthinking follower or admirer of Ayn Rand. Her works do nothing if not make a person use their brains.That a philosophy glorifying the untrammeled individual has attracted numerous unthinking followers (this volume's foreword by Leonard Peikoff, a national radio talk show host, and commentaries by David Harriman, a Ph.D. candidate at Claremont Graduate School, have about them the whiff of sycophancy).Here he tries to inoculate himself from a substantive rebuttal of his substance-less attacks:
Any parasite can put together an uniformed hit piece, as Brooks clearly demonstrates. It would be nice if The Times had gotten some 'unthinking' follower of Rand to do the book review rather than someone like Brooks who rejects Rand not because of some substantive disagreement with her philosophy but because he is offended by the pride she showed in herself and her own ability.My harsh assessment won't bother Randians, who expect this sort of thing from parasites like me. (Condemning a Randian is like hitting a masochist; it just confirms his worldview.) -
Care to expand upon that at all? Specifically, what premises are you talking about and why they lead where they do?This is exactly my stance on the issue and NOT because "Ayn Rand said it" but because follows from the premises. -
I think if you are trying to convert the 'implacably opposed' you are wasting your time. A good portion of the US is prepared to accept the notion that gay couples have the same legal benefits as straight couples. The hang-up is on the word 'marriage.' There has to be a definition of the term 'marriage.' The question is, what is that definition going to be and who decides. Right now, the choice seems to be between the union of 'a man and a woman' or the 'union of two persons.' But why is that necessarily the only choices? On what grounds do you propose to exclude incest and polygamy from the definition? If marriage becomes 'the union of any number of people for any number of reasons' it loses its value entirely. That is what much of the principle opposition to gay marriage is based upon.I can hope people implacably opposed to gay marriage would open their hearts to the feelings and aspirations of gay and lesbian folk.
I dont think you will find much, if any, disagreement on that point on this forum, and certainly not from me. I will say as an aside, unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how homosexuality can be viewed as immoral. The moral deals only with what is subject to voluntary choice. Homosexuality is not something that I view as open to my choosing. I cannot, for instance, decide that tomorrow I am going to start liking guys. I do not chose to be attracted to females, I just am attracted to females. There was never a point in my life where I made such a conscious choice. So for me, anyway, the morality or immorality of homosexuality is not an issue. I would be interested to know what "psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises" lie at the root of homosexuality that cause Rand to view it as immoral, however.I do recall what Ayn Rand said in a question and answer period on the subject of homosexuality. Whatever her personal and emotional revulsion was at the time (1971), whatever her personal moral judgement, she did not support the abridgement of gay people's rights to bed whom they chose -- she supported repeal of sodomy laws. She saw no reason for the state to have business in the bedrooms of the nation. -
Two things here. First, I don't believe that I have used either 'you people' or 'them gays' in any of my posts, so I don't want to let the implication that I have stand. Second, and more importantly, empathy works both ways. You want empathy for your position but are unwilling to grant it to those who disagree with you. If you review your posts, you have tried to leave the impression that those against gay marriage are nothing more than gun-toting, backwoods hicks. Lets leave aside for the moment the fact that there are plenty of people out there whose positions rest solely upon outright bigotry against gays and focus on those whose objections to gay marriage rest upon moral and/or religious grounds. Do you have empathy for their positions? Or do you just demand that they have empathy for yours?What I tried to do was encourage empathy, Fletch. It's hard to gain understanding by recourse to us/them constructs, to think in terms of 'you people' or 'them gays.'
Why not?If you seek numerous spouses you are free to do so, as long as you don't attempt to solemnize your couplings. -
Fletch, care to address my questions?
I think you made some very good points. And you may in fact be right. I am not personally all that deeply wed (pardon the pun) to the idea that marriage must remain as it has always been--a union of man and woman--but there are clearly many in the US that are. I will allow for the possibility that I am just not willing to grant gays the acceptance that they so desperately seek. And that having been brought up on the idea that marriage is a union of a man and a woman I am more inclined to agree with those who wish not to change it and question the motives of those that do. I have also found proponents of gay marriage to be intellectually inconsistent. I wonder if William Scott Sherk would support me if I suddenly had the urge to marry my brother, or have numerous wives.
-
I think one of the keys to objective thinking is to look at things, well, objectively. It reminds me of similar statements slung at me by leftists: "You wouldn't think the way you do if you were poor." I get that one a lot when I dare to defend the rights of the rich to keep what is theirs. When the smoking ban was passed in Ohio, I didn't need to start smoking and buy a bar to understand the issue. I could kind of get it without being directly effected by it. As far as gay marriage goes, I cannot get past the issue of why gays care what their union is called so long as they have rights equal to those in heterosexual marriages. The fact is, for many, that is not enough. That their union be called marriage is vital. I can only conclude that they want not only to be equal, but to be accepted as equal. That is what the term marriage buys you--acceptance. I suppose that to gays, civil unions would be viewed as sort of a "separate but equal" type of thing which makes it a non-starter. So you are seeking more than an "extension of marriage rights to gay and lesbian relationships," you are seeking the word 'marriage' and the social acceptance that the word would automatically give you. Rather than smuggle yourselves into an existing concept, create your own.It's a tricky point, maybe, but I urge you to consider it in your own personal ethical terms, rather than pre-empt the morality by way of "you people" framing. What if you had turned out to have homosexual orientation . . . or your sister or your brother, or your son or daughter. What is more important to you: the legal recognition of your/their committed loving relationships as chosen (the Canuckistani way), or to deny you/them that exact same legal recognition based on the word (marriage)?If it was you and yours instead of some murky gay 'them,' then what?
-
The marxist forums are thataway ==>
-
Too bad that neither candidate for president has any interest in drilling up there. McCain seems to place a greater value on the "pristine" nature of Alaska than the exploitation of any natural resources contained there. And we all know where Obama stands. Any movement seems to be 4-8 years away.
-
Because they are two different types of unions. One is a union of a man and a woman the other is a union of a man and a man. One combines people of the opposite sex and the other combines people of the same sex. It seems reasonable to me to call them different things.Specifically, what reason makes it necessary to use different words to distinguish between the two types of unions? -
The law can sanction such activity without calling it marriage, can it not? To be clear, I do not consider homosexual activity to be immoral. It is not something I plan to engage in, but if two consenting adults do, then I couldn't care less. I am, however, somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a union between two men or two women should be called something other than marriage.Homosexuals may be looking for moral sanction, but so what? The law is supposed to sanction all moral activity. -
Then it is the moral sanction of your behavior you are after and that the co-option of the word "marriage" grants you, and not some high-minded pursuit of some lost individual rights. Why is a term such as 'civil union' not satisfactory?Um, how about, 'No, we don't have to pick another name, thanks'? -
From the essay:
Was this essay written by a man or a raccoon?I'm extremely frugal, love unstructured time, and would sooner eat garbage than feign enthusiasm. More than ten years later I'm a specialist at eating garbage -- as I draft this I'm eating a meal I made with organic eggs from a dumpster, and later I'll make a pie of dumpstered apples. -
That is not Pragers argument. As I understand it, he is not opposed to gays forming an "exclusive, life-long legal commitment to one another," he is opposed to a state sanction of such behavior that is labelled: marriage. He sees it as another attempt by the left to corrupt the language. Marriage, which once had a specific definition, will now suddenly have another. It is the changing of an age old Jewish/Christian tradition of calling marriage a union of a man and woman being altered forever by judical fiat that he is opposed to.Prager's argument here boils down to something like, "<span style="font-weight: bold;">Everybody</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> else</span> opposes same-sex marriage. Who are you to say otherwise." Or: " You are immoral if you hold that two consenting adults who happen to be gay and wish to form an exclusive, life-long legal commitment to one another should be able to do so."
Is that what gays are after? Or is it the moral sanction of their behavior that they really want?Preventing committed gay couples by law from enjoying the same legal benefits enjoyed by straight couples violates the individual rights of gay couples. -
I am not sure exactly what one could learn about a 70 year old man by perusing his college transcripts.Shyboy's last post was a pretty blatant red herring, right? -
If I am not mistaken, many politicians are/were lawyers.
-
Not that Myself needs me to defend him, but I saw nothing "bratty" in his original post, nor his second post for that matter. That is not to say that there have not been bratty/snotty posts on this thread. It is just that he is not the guilty party.Now you're just trying to justify your original bratty attitude. -
Obama is not a communist, nor is he a dunce, he is running for pick-pocket in chief. He knows capitalism is the goose that will lay the golden eggs he plans to redistribute. He wants capitalism in chains, not destroyed.
-
Marty, you're joking, right?
-
If thats the case, Jackson needs a whole new staff. He hasnt fooled anyone in more than 20 years. People know exactly what Jackson is and that is why Obama has to keep his distance. Personally, I think if this was an planned event, it wasnt very bright. Jacksons face--or Sharptons, for that matter-- popping up during this campaign can only help remind people that they are still out there and are four-square behind Obama. Despite any minor differences, Jackson will probably demand some sort of special access to a President Obama. One more reason not to vote for Obama--if you needed one.The whole thing just seems too convenient to me. And you know (don't you?) that these guys have armies of staffers who stay up nights trying to figure out how to fool the American people. -
How are the sodbusters not also individuals?
I am sure most were. I suspect the person in the original letter wished only to discredit Ayn Rand and individualism, and used a poor analogy. The fact that sodbusters might work together ocasionally to achieve common goals does not invalidate individualism, or even begin to suggest that it was collectivism that made America great--which is the point the original letter was trying to make.
-
What you have is people forming opinions based upon superficial assessments or emotional reactions to certain events. Many people view pictures of Hiroshima and see massive devastation, death and human suffering and conclude that A-bomb=bad. They quite probably have not thought about it on a much deeper level, except to say that anyone who uses an A-bomb is bad as well. The context of why such a weapon was used or might be used in the future is dropped. The consequences of such a weapon's use are so unthinkable to them that they, well, refuse to think about it. They wind up with, as Grames noted, "no thoughts merely opinions." And you might well be the first person to expose the lack of foundation underlying those opinions.
-
If you are counting on he republican to restrain an Obama White House, you can forget it.
If Obama beats McCain and the democrats retain or increase their control over congress, there will be one word you will hear over and over again: mandate. Obama, it will be said, has a mandate for change. How will that manifest itself? Any way he and the dems want it to. Whatever Obama proposes, no matter how far out of the mainstream, will be portrayed as exactly the type of change he ran on and the American people voted for. Any republican opposition will be portrayed as obstructionism or outright defiance of the will of the American people. The left, of course, will not be afraid to play their racist trump card either. Just how much, it will be wondered, of the republican opposition to Obama is nothing more than a desire to see the first black president fail? Is their opposition is really philosophical, or is it just racial? Under that type of pressure, don't expect many republicans to pop their heads up.
In short, I suspect that in the first year or two of an Obama administration, whatever Obama wants, he will likely get.
-
Actually, it tells me nothing of Objectivism's appeal. What is does tell me is something that I already knew: youngsters have more free time on their hands than those of us raising families.Of course, that's not to say there aren't older Objectivists. But the fact that Objectivism's major following tends to be youngsters who haven't yet had families might tell you something about its appeal. -
I have a couple of possibilities. First, 9/11 was so spectacular that any future attempt that falls short of that 'success' will more resemble a failure. If the best Al Qaeda can do now is a bomb on a bus, they might fear they will be viewed in the Arab world as having been so substantially weakened as to no longer being a viable organization. It might also be that they now realize what a massive blunder it was to attack the US in the first place. Look what it got them. Where pre 9/11 they had a friendly training base in Afghanistan and were free to reign their terror across the globe, they have since been evicted from Afghanistan, defeated in Iraq and most of their leaders are either dead or in hiding. They might just be thinking that if they have any hope of trying to regroup, it would be best not to piss us off.
Prager's False Equation
in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Posted