themadkat

Several major clerics in Iran have basically told him to get bent. He doesn't really have a power base anymore.

I think you raised an excellent point here. Why would we ever want to override or, perhaps more accurately, subvert the pleasure/pain mechanism? Speaking for myself, I can think of many reasons. A very straightforward example is, I am an athlete, and there have been many times during the course of either training or competition that I have been in fairly intense pain, but if I were to stop training right then, how would I ever become strong? Just today I was training down in the company gym on my break and the bench presses I was attempting hurt quite a bit. This is because I have chronic shoulder problems. Perhaps ironically, the only way I can ever truly heal my arm is to correct the positional and muscular imbalances in the joint through exercise. So, if I do not endure the pain of exercise and stretching, my arm will never get better. This conclusion is unacceptable to me as I am an active person and a full life requires that my arm work more reliably than it currently does. Let's try something a little less dramatic as not everyone likes throwing around heavy things as much as me. Perhaps your passion is music and you want to become a guitar virtuoso. When you start playing the guitar, it hurts your fingers. If you continue to play sometimes your fingers may even bleed. But if you allow that to dissuade you then you will never acquire enough skill to achieve your goals. The more you push through the pain in the beginning, the faster your fingers adapt after which point the pain is no longer a problem. Or you can be like Pete Townsend, one of the greatest rock guitarists of all time, who thought nothing of shredding his hands during a concert (there's a notable picture of him holding up his torn, bleeding hand with a huge smile on his face). But you know what, as far as our masochism discussion goes, I don't think for most people it is about merely enduring pain. Some people may be doing that, but that's not usually what I associate with masochism. That's more like a girl gritting her teeth for a few seconds while she's losing her virginity. It's not that she likes the pain, it's just that it'll be better in a minute and then she can get about the business of enjoying the sex. Why would a rational person actually ENJOY pain, rather than merely put up with it as a means to some other end? This is where I'm not sure how my answer would intersect with Objectivism or whether Objectivists would consider this a bit off, but I submit that it is rational to enjoy pain under certain circumstances. It has been my experience in the world that one frequently encounters pain in the pursuit, or even subsequent to the achievement, of one's values. Certainly in an ideal world this would not be the case, and one would feel only pleasure and happiness from the pursuit of rational values, but I'm sure we can all agree that this is not an ideal world and that many things are not as they should be. Frequently greatness is persecuted and belittled. As a result of this, I have learned that rather than an indication of a problem, pain may often be a signal that one is on the right track. Please take this comment only within the scope it is intended; I am hardly implying that all pain indicates success. If I smack my head against a wall repeatedly, that pain does not mean I'm doing something great, it means I'm a dumbass and I shouldn't be hitting my head on a wall. What one must do is identify the source of the pain. If the source of the pain is a virtue, you may actually find it is possible to enjoy the pain in itself, so long as the cause is virtuous. Getting back to this masochism business, say that you are with your beloved, treasured mate. You trust them more than anyone, you trust them with every part of you. They are capable of bringing out all of your most intense states of being. The experiences of that lover pushing you, testing you, driving your senses to the edge with that most primal and visceral of all sensations, pain, and sharing that with them, that intensely private part of yourself, but sharing it in the context of something beautiful rather than ugly, I personally derive intense value from that experience. And the funny thing about masochism, when done properly, is that you, not your lover, are actually the one in control. You know for certain that any time you ask them to stop, they will, if you ask them to kiss the welts and wipe your tears if you should happen to cry (I don't but some people really do push these things that far) that they would, if you ask them to hold you until the shaking stops they do without hesitation. You know all this, but you don't ask, you don't give in, you delight in the sensation of seeing just how much more you can take knowing that it's your choice. It's tough to explain things like this if it's not the sort of thing you're inclined to enjoy. If anyone has a more specific question about things that may help me target my explanations a bit more. By the way, in case anyone hasn't guessed, I don't exactly condone the sex party culture that surrounds much of "popular" BDSM practice. I don't see how it can possibly be special or valuable if you aren't with someone you strongly care for, unless you either a) don't truly let go and show your deepest self or don't really have anything of value to put out there, in which case, what's the point?

And you'd be right.

I would remind the librarians that their professional forebears died to try and save the library at Alexandria from destruction by mindless barbarians. How can they dishonor that proud legacy by making any excuse for that very behavior?

I don't know about statistics being good or bad but I do know that on my campus it was a huge problem and many women were assaulted. I do not agree that it is wise to minimize the dangers to women on a college campus. I personally know a few women who were either outright raped or assaulted in some other way (ie something less than intercourse). I know that within the first term I was on campus one of my rugby teammates was drugged at a party and had to go to the hospital because she nearly stopped breathing. I know that there are incredible obstacles to reporting and pursuing action against these sorts of things as well, and part of the problem is the attitude towards girls that "put themselves in bad situations". And to top it all off, my school got rid of the woman who was the best resource for assaulted students because she was too vocal about the problem. We can't have these ugly facts tarnishing the school's reputation! I didn't always agree with this woman, especially with regards to her politics, but I had a lot of respect for the work she did and the fact that she spent an enormous amount of her time and energy to help the students. In fact, she even helped my male friend who was falsely accused of rape to protect himself against character assassination. I do agree that the actions of a woman prior to a rape or sexual assault are not immune to moral judgment. I absolutely believe that women should take responsibility and respect themselves and it angers me when they don't. But we need to always remember that the final responsibility for rape always lies with the rapist. And we also need to remember that telling women they were asking for it can be a very dangerous path to go down as people have incredibly divergent opinions of what constitutes "asking for it". Thankfully I myself have never been a victim. I tended to avoid the party scene and I'm somewhat personally intimidating so I suppose I wasn't much of a target. But there were a couple terms where I worked very late at a cafe and had to walk home around 3 AM right past a frat house. I was very ill at least one of those terms and would have found it hard to defend myself if someone gave me a problem (anyone who's ever had mono understands how that might be tough). Was I "asking for it"? I think all of you would say no, but some people would say yes. What were you thinking, walking home alone at 3 AM! How dare you presume yourself safe on your own campus, your home? You may think it's silly, but I know people who think this way.

I don't see why masochism should be particularly maligned as a sexual practice. I think it's a little sketch when someone makes masochism a whole lifestyle, as I find it hard to believe that they value themselves, but as far as leaving it in the bedroom, where's the bad? I personally happen to enjoy it, and I like dishing it out too. I'd like to hear people's understanding of why it is, to use one of Rand's favorite words, "depraved". Disclaimer: Some BDSM practices are DANGEROUS. I do not consider these to be a good idea, for obvious reasons. So there's no point writing that practices are bad because they're dangerous as I already accept that.

Aww, all he needs is a heroic, aggressive woman, dat's all.

I can has cheezburger on Caturday? Also, all your base are belong to us.

I have to confess I've never understood this. I've read Barbara Branden's book in its entirety and I have no idea why so many Objectivists say it painted her in a bad light. I thought it was a very affectionate portrait and that it was obvious from reading it that even after all the things which transpired between them that Barbara still displays an obvious love of Rand. Also, what is the evidence for saying that the majority of the biography is a lie? I'm certain there are some inaccuracies in it, for example I know that Ms. Rand's name has nothing to do with a typewriter, but don't you think that many more of the people interviewed in the book would have taken serious exception to being used to mislead, especially considering who they were? Anyway, she clearly had an affair with Nathaniel. Nowhere in the book does it suggest she had any other affair. Far from showing her being an emotional wreck, I thought the book showed her to be dealing with some very difficult realities as best she could. I have no idea why some people need to feel like Rand was perfect. Neither she nor anyone else will ever be perfect. If you think about it, perfection is not even possible to humans, so like omniscience or omnipotence it is no proper standard by which to judge someone. Besides, whatever Ms. Rand's personal flaws may have been, they have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of her philosophy, which depends exclusively on the content of that philosophy and its relation to reality. I really do think it's an exaggeration to say that the majority of Rand's biography is a lie, unless you can show me some evidence of such.

I think something interesting has popped up out of this discussion, at least in my mind. It's about the nature of social judgment. In a court of law, we have objective standards (in theory) to determine guilt or innocence. For a criminal case, if there is reasonable doubt that he may not have committed the crime for which he is accused, a responsible juror must vote to acquit. In the court of public opinion, however, there is no such bar set. For the average person (not necessarily the average Objectivist, but perhaps even many Objectivists) even the SUSPICION that someone has done something can be enough to damn them. This is why in order to destroy a person's reputation it can be sufficient merely to accuse them of something, even if later in court they are completely cleared of any wrongdoing. I want to reiterate this point - a person can be COMPLETELY INNOCENT in reality but still have serious harm done to their lives from mere accusation, and this accusation can be based on nothing more than hearsay. I think this is where loyalty comes in. When you are loyal to a person you are not swayed by the changing tides of opinion with regard to them. You will stick up for them in both word and deed, even when it may be disadvantageous to you to do so, because you know that the value of this person is greater and not to be sold out to the lesser achievement of safety from the displeasure of the mob. I think another important aspect of loyalty, ironically enough, is not to shrink from judgment. If you hear someone saying something damning but false about a friend and then someone asks you what you think, it's disloyal for you to say, "Er, hm, I dunno, it's tough to say either way." Instead you ought to say "No, that's complete crap, it never happened, and I understand if you thought it was true but now that you know it's a lie you should stop telling people this." Do you run the risk of being wrong? Sure, but it's better to take a stand and be wrong then never take one at all. I also want to note, you can be loyal to people or to groups, but perhaps the most misunderstood and most important loyalties are to ideas. When I say I'm loyal to America, I don't mean this particular government running America, but I mean the idea of America and what it stands for, individual rights and freedom on principle. You can be loyal to all sorts of ideas, including Objectivism, and I think that when you show yourself to be loyal to anything, person, group, idea, even thing (although we could debate how rational that would actually be), you are saying, "I will not sell out this enduring value for any fleeting temptation that may appear advantageous in the moment." That's my interpretation.

I think it does. If it's obvious he did it, if there's a video tape of him killing his wife and tons of other physical evidence, etc. then you should not be loyal to him any longer. But until then, if he tells you he didn't do it and there is any reasonable possibility that he didn't, you should believe him and help him. That's my position anyway.

I want to address the topic of loyalty to people specifically. I think that loyalty is tremendously important and want to befriend people who are loyal vs. those who are not. To me, loyalty, like friendship, is a response to values in the other person, but it's not of quite the same nature as friendship. In fact, I think you can be loyal to someone who is not your friend or have a friend to whom you do not feel particular loyalty. I take loyalty to be related to valuing consistently. It means giving your friend the benefit of the doubt, and it also means not falling into the "what have you done for me lately" mode of friendship. In other words, it's a way of being steady in a relationship over the longer term by not getting too caught up in any short term occurrences. If your friend of five years pisses you off badly, say, you don't turn around the next day and slander them to your other friends or, worse, some random strangers. Like someone said above, loyalty is not absolute or eternal. If someone you have been loyal to uses it to harm you, for example, especially if they do it consistently, it would be foolish and counterproductive to continue to be loyal to them. Similarly loyalty is not "my friend right or wrong". In fact, I find that somewhat disloyal, because if you enable your friend in wrong action you're actually harming them. For example, if you know your friend stole something, helping them hide it is not loyal or moral. On the other hand, calling the cops on them straightaway is not really loyal either. What you should do is confront them and give them the chance to right the wrong themselves, by returning the item and turning themselves in, letting them know that if they don't you will, and that you'll also lose respect for them. If it was someone you weren't as loyal to, it might be more appropriate to just turn them in.

Interestingly enough I too preferred Andrei to Leo. I also greatly enjoyed Irina and was sorry to see her storyline end so sadly. I know We the Living is an earlier work but in some respects I actually prefer it to Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged simply from a literary standpoint because it is more raw and passionate.

Favorite TV show of all time: Xena, Warrior Princess Dramatizes, for better and for worse, the warrior's life, of nobility, honor, and purpose. I especially like when Xena relies on strategy to overcome her foes as well as the more ridiculous acrobatic stuff. I also find the friendship between Xena and Gabrielle beautiful. Other great shows: Buffy the Vampire Slayer Firefly Law and Order: SVU The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. ER (some seasons) Just about anything on the History Channel Special category just for cartoons: Ren and Stimpy Rocko's Modern Life Family Guy Futurama Cowboy Bebop But still, I'll always love Xena. I can't believe it's been off the air for seven years now. It was such a big part of my growing up. Why, oh why did they have to mess up the last two seasons so badly...

I remember taking a course on nanotechnology through the engineering dept. a couple years ago and loving it. It was a course designed for non-science folk but I think I still had an easier time in the class than the government majors. Nano stuff is exciting and I can't wait to see this field advance.

Because if you withdraw medical intervention, the disease kills the child. If you euthanize it, YOU kill the child. Now, if the child is already past the point of no return and in its last moments and it's in terrible pain, then I think you could make the argument for euthanasia, but only then.

I know this was already said by another poster, but yes, you are thinking of Flex Spending Accounts. With an HSA, it's a bank account (mine is serviced by Chase, for example) that you own. It's your money and it gains interest and rolls over from year to year. In fact, if you build enough of a balance of unused funds, you can begin an investment portfolio with the money (serviced by Chase, of course).

I don't believe the baby should be euthanized, but I think it is moral to make the decision to withdraw any further medical intervention once the child can no longer make any sense of its surroundings. If the parents decide to just take the baby home and make it as comfortable as possible while its final months play out, that would be an acceptable and understandable decision.

I have a HSA through work, so I can at least provide some facts about it. Firstly I think it's not a bad thing to have, but that's mostly because my company makes a (tax-free) contribution to it for the year which is considerable. It's also nice because it decreases my taxable income by the amount I choose to contribute. And, to top it all off, it's interest-bearing. Now some problems. By choosing to put money in my HSA I'm "earmarking" it for medical expenses. I could have just as easily invested that money, even in my humble online savings account, gotten more interest on it, kept it more liquid, and also "earmarked" it for medical expenses by just saying, "I won't spend this money except on medical expenses." But instead, to get the tax deduction (which is really the only benefit to having an HSA), I have to forfeit my ability to spend my own money any way I choose as it is assumed I do not have the responsibility to keep my hands out of any personal "lockbox" I might create for myself to pay for healthcare. Another problem is that in order to qualify for an HSA you must enter into a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP), which restricts your choices of what health plan you can enroll in. It also has the unintended side effect of making people liable for the entire high deductible if they cannot qualify for the HSA due to some other tax provision and therefore cannot receive the company contribution (this actually happened to one of my direct reports, a veteran whose military benefits prevented him from getting an HSA). So are HSAs a good thing? For the moment, maybe. It's mostly just a tax shelter. But I'd still prefer to have affordable individual insurance available to me where I could choose exactly the kind of insurance I wanted (probably just catastrophic) and disconnect my health insurance from employment entirely. I'd be more than happy to conduct more of my healthcare transactions directly with the provider without the middleman of insurance, since if everyone was doing that all treatments would probably cost less.

Notice that the students themselves spoke of feeling more "content" than happy. Notice also that they described freedom acontextually. I think these are some of the key differences. Will these guys all have decent lives? Probably. But they do not have the opportunity to live an extraordinary life (or, conversely, crash and burn spectacularly) like perhaps someone like me would.

I've been following this story on the terrible shooting at Northern Illinois University. It sounds like the shooter is a schizo who stopped taking his meds. From all available information it sounds like as long as he stayed on his medication he would never hurt anybody. But then, once he's off, well...bang. What are the ethics of this? Can people who are convicted of a crime but placed in a health facility instead of prison due to reasons of mental defect be forced to take their medication as a condition of their release? Please note that I am restricting this question to a very specific subset of people, those who have been convicted of hurting others as a result of their mental illness. I do not intend to discuss people who may be LIKELY to hurt others were they off their meds but have never actually done so. I believe that is a separate issue and I would not find it justified to force those (innocent) people to do anything. I'm interested in this topic for a few reasons. I think it encompasses the intersection of ideas like choosing to be rational or not, responsibility for one's actions, guilt or innocence and when "permanent" punishment is justified. Oh, and although I understand others may not agree, it is my opinion that there are valid, rational reasons for not taking medication for a mental illness. They do have serious side effects and can also radically alter your personality (as any Objectivist who rejects the mind-body dichotomy can accept, the physiological condition of your body can and does affect your mind and mental states). Discuss.

I do acknowledge the biological component, however, the body's biological response is in an ongoing feedback loop with its environment beginning at conception. In other words, it is not "set": your biology will quite literally be different depending on your physical experiences over the course of your lifetime. I also want to maintain the importance of keeping context, comparing the differences between men and women as respective groups with the differences among men and among women. Given the tremendous room for variance there, I think it greatly diminishes the significance of whatever differences are found between average values for whatever trait you choose between the sexes. This is essentially the crux of my argument. I also wonder why it hasn't been brought up before now that it is not necessarily the case that romance occurs between a man and a woman. Human sexuality is more fluid than that. There are limits to this fluidity (I could not "turn off" my attraction to men, nor do I have any desire to as men are tasty), but even if you keep attraction to just one gender it is still more complicated. For example I suspect that you and I would not be attracted to the same kinds of men, would not be interested in them for the same reasons, etc, but we are both straight females.

I'm not so sure about that. I read several parts of that book, both for class and out of interest, and as an evolutionary biologist I find severe flaws with it. For example, he often relies on studies that had sample sizes which were way too small or had unreliable methodologies. Other times he takes a legitimate study but draws a conclusion way beyond what is justified by the evidence. So I would use The Red Queen as an example of what has gone wrong in the field of evolutionary psychology, not as a reliable scholarly work. I still disagree that there are any necessary personality differences between man AS SUCH and woman AS SUCH. And again I posit that we have men and women, not Man and Woman. I will certainly grant that there are certain personality traits or behaviors, or even aggregates of traits/behaviors, that are more typically found either in men or more typically found in women. But in my opinion the jury is still out on what causes or influences these behaviors, whether it is biological or social/cultural (or most likely, an interplay of both). More importantly, the jury is still out over whether these stereotypically masculine or feminine behaviors, to the degree that they are reflected in reality, are actually healthy or life-affirming at all. Sophia, I think I have a fairly good idea of your opinions on this matter from reading your other posts, and so I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. This is just one of those things where we're placing emphasis on different facets of the same reality and thus are going to draw different conclusions.

I have to disagree on this score too. I believe there is no metaphysically necessary difference in the nature of "man" vs. "woman". I deny that there is man and woman, only individual men and women. If someone wants to behave according to a more traditional gender role that's fine, that's their choice to make. If someone rejects their traditional gender role that's also their choice. I believe that people will act according to their individual personalities and that so long as people behave rationally and in their own best interests, gender is really irrelevant to the discussion. I doubt Ms. Rand would agree but that is my position.

I have to admit, I've certainly never understood Rand's view of men and women, and I couldn't disagree more. This is one of the few major divergences I have from Rand's philosophy (if in fact this was part of Objectivism and not just a separate personal opinion of hers). I don't see anything in particular to worship about masculinity (if there even is such a thing) any more than I do about femininity. I'm certainly a big fan of the male PHYSIQUE, but that's because I'm a straight female, not because I have some kind of value for broad shoulders, tapered hips, and body fur beyond their aesthetic appeal to me. Love and romance are extremely important to me and I find myself fortunate to have a partner that could very well stick around for life, but my romantic experience has never centered around anything like what Rand describes. And I certainly do find myself often being a pal to men (especially my guy, as we are friends first and foremost) and sometimes a leader as well. In fact, the team of folks I supervise at work is more men than women...they sure BETTER see me as a leader! After all, we have a job to do. One thing I can see is that Rand had personal regard for many more people who happened to be men than who happened to be women. I share this sentiment myself. I find myself disliking many women, and I often dislike them for the very traits about themselves that they claim to be "feminine" or "womanly". From this empirical observation it may seem easy to conclude that there is something inherently weaker or lesser about women BECAUSE they are women, but I find this conclusion spurious. I don't think Rand really believed women were inferior to men, of course I can't read her mind. But I think she took this personal distaste for many individual women, which I share, and leaped to a conclusion about the nature of woman which was unwarranted. Hope this made sense. Ali K.