themadkat
-
Posts
714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by themadkat
-
-
Great job! I am interested in reading the response to this.
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?
-
As far as I know, the emergency phones on campus at my college were never used. I worked with the police department for 5 years during the hours of 11 p.m. and 2 in the morning. During that time we never heard a single call about rape or anything of the sort. If it's happening, it's not being reported or not on campus. If it is happening it's more then likely in one of the numerous Frat houses here who openly admit to spiking womans drinks with date rape drugs.
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.
-
I'm trying to break it to him as gently as possible... I don't want to dump on the new guy or anything. I mean if that's his bag then it's not the end of the world or anything... it's just he should know that's not where the books were going...
Aww, all he needs is a heroic, aggressive woman, dat's all.
-
Well, you rag on the use of 'pithy meta-memes for wit' and then use two of them for the basis of the title of your topic.
I can has cheezburger on Caturday? Also, all your base are belong to us.
-
1. The Brandens: Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have proven to be the absolute worse false friends of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Rand and the Brandens worked together for a few years (you can even find some of Nathaniel's essays in The Virtue of Selfishness [TVOS]), but later it was revealed that he was lying and was against Objectivism, but his objections amounted to evasion.
The single greatest hinderment came when a biography came out about the Branden's time with Ayn Rand. It painted her in a bad light, going everywhere from saying she was an emotional wreck her entire life and that she has had affairs. The one problem though: Ayn Rand broke off relations with the Brandens after they were revealed to be lying, so the vast majority (if not all) of the biography is a lie. Nonetheless the lies still exist today and are used in the majority of ad hominid attacks against Ayn Rand.
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.
-
It is precisely when one lacks the absolute that loyalty comes into play, though I'm sure that's not how you were referring to absolute.
Consider this example; You've grown up with a person who is becomes your best friend over an extended period of time. He becomes you friend because over a significantly long period of time he's demonstrated that he is remarkably virtuous. Level-headed, rational, compassionate, friendly, helpful, slow to anger, etc. etc. (insert good qualities here). Then one day, you friend's wife is found murdered, there is enough circumstantial evidence that points in his direction and he is charged. The evidence is pretty damning, but not a slam dunk, and he tells you he did not do it. Your long term estimation of his character suggests that it is very improbable that he committed the crime, but obviously you don't know with certainty. To what level should you assist and support your friend at this point? How loyal should you be helping him deal with this ordeal?
Re-examine the example but change the evidence against him to be a slam dunk, no doubt whatsoever that he did it. Does that change how loyal you should be to him?
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.
-
I liked Andrei very much as a character. More than Leo, he was a real jerk.
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.
-
For what reasons is it moral to withdraw any further medical intervention but not euthanize the child?
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've actually seen this and even watched it again with a semi-lefty friend who was visibly swayed by the arguments (It helped that Michael Moore was in rare idiotic form talking to Stossel). The one thing I don't understand is the idea that money you don't spend on healthcare in the case of the Whole Foods employees was said to go into a savings plan or Roth IRA. However in New York State, I've always been told that if you don't spend the money in your HSA, it is basically gone (then again I suppose it was never really mine to begin with as far as my trusted local representatives are concerned).
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).
-
OH I BET IT WAS! No, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I can only assume that given your presence here, you have a legitimate reason behind what you said -- I'm just asking what that reason is.
But still my question stands -- after several months, if the baby loses its rational faculty, can it properly be euthanized?
DOES Tay-Sachs result in a loss of rational faculty?
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.
-
Hi everyone! I just joined this forum.
I thought this was interesting (and sad)
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness
I think the most interesting thing to point out is for all of Denmark's happiness, what have they produced, invented, or accomplished toward the advancement of mankind?
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 don't agree with everything in Ridley's book (and he himself said that many of his ideas will probably be proven wrong) but I found many of his arguments insighful.
Are you saying that there aren't any or that none of existing ones are necessary?
The denial of all is unsupported given the observed hormonal variations between the sexes (and their known influence on the brain) alone not to mention differences in the brain structure (differences in size of some of the brain parts or connectivity between them).
If you agree with me that it is both then you acknowledge the biological component as well.
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.
-
A good book to read on this topic is The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley. He explains how it makes sense that we have evolved the way we did. Why, for example, there are two genders/sexual reproduction instead of one gender/asexual one.
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.
-
Ayn Rand in particular and Objectivism in general understands as well as appreciates the unique differences between the sexes. It is their unique differences that they celebrate, along with both sexes ability for productive achievement of ones rational values. It is not a philosophy that blends men and women into a unisexual blob where only abilities matter. Objectivism does not try to negate the nature unique to both men and women, which is why I think Ayn Rand railed against the modern feminist movement, they were blinding the line between men and women.
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.
-
My college had "distributive requirements", where you had to take courses from a certain area but not any specific choice from that area (ie pick a history course but it doesn't have to be History 2). I thought this worked better. It's a shame you're actually mandated to take certain classes. My best advice is to find what excites you as best you can and try to find value in the subject matter, even if you don't like the way it's being taught. It's too bad the message you're getting is that your achievements are worthy of shame. I had a friend in a class one time where the professor literally described as a "soulless failure" anyone who wanted to make money and live comfortably. I'm betting that unlike my friend in this class she did not grow up in abject poverty with few material comforts. She had some gall calling my friend a soulless failure.
-
Actually, to be perfectly accurate, the author's description of narcissism is not actually how the mental health profession classifies narcissism. I think she is using the popular definition for narcissism and passing it off as the medical definition. In actual narcissism, in the pathology, it's not necessary for the person to really like themselves. Self-obsession is sufficient. It's possible for them to even have low self-esteem.
Campus Rape Culture?
in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Posted
And you'd be right.