brian0918

I can agree that this might be the case, though it's difficult to separate McCandless from Krakauer's interpretation of McCandless. If you went based on Krakauer's analysis, then it wasn't simply ignorance. For example, regarding McCandless's desire for "being the first to explore a blank spot on the map", Krakauer states: "In 1992, however, there were no more blank spots on the map—not in Alaska, not anywhere. But Chris, with his idiosyncratic logic, came up with an elegant solution to this dilemma: He simply got rid of the map. In his own mind, if nowhere else, the terra would thereby remain incognita." However Krakauer could just be dramatizing McCandless's actions. Especially considering that McCandless did have a map on him.

He didn't bring a compass. He also did not know how to properly preserve meat. Even a basic survival guide would have covered that. As did I. You have to realize that the book and movie are both trying to tell a story, and do not necessarily reflect reality. Except there was a hand-operated tram 1/4 mile down river that he could have used to cross the river. There were also cabins within a few miles that could have proved useful. Except that's not true. "The book was published before the seeds' testing was completed by Dr. Thomas Clausen, the chair of the chemistry and biochemistry department at UAF. 'I was hoping it was true,' says Clausen, in his lab on campus. 'It would have made a good story. But the scientific results worked against my biases. I tore that plant apart. There were no toxins. No alkaloids. I'd eat it myself.'" Here's a more thorough discussion of the seeds. The whole plant guide scene (in both the book and movie) was completely dramatized.

Welcome to the forum! Speaking of TED:

He wanted to be away from people, but he didn't want the responsibility (for his own life) that comes with such separation from society. He seemed to think getting food in Alaska would be just as easy as a trip to the grocery store, ignoring all the human effort that was involved in making convenient food possible. "Where are all the fucking animals?! I'M FUCKING HUNGRY!"

This letter appears written purposely to be included on the CP.org Positive Feedback page, as particularly evident by the pandering in the last sentence. It's unfortunate to see Edward Cline included on that page, passing judgment on DH based solely on his "one and only encounter" which "left a bad taste" in his mouth. He compares her to "sworn enemies" of Rand who "attacked her with smears" intent on destroying Objectivism, as if we should presume that DH is even attacking Rand or Objectivism, and not simply disputing LP's application of Objectivism to particulars (for which I agree with LP, not DH, in certain instances). Might I remind you that LP himself states that disagreement with him, or even with Rand, on concrete applications of Objectivism, does not disqualify one from being an Objectivist. Cline is right that many people are "very confused about what is and what ought to be." But confusion isn't immoral, and it is not alleviated with a condescending remark ("alleged Objectivists... presumptive students of Objectivism"), but with clarification and discourse.

I am trying to be patient with you, but you are making this exceedingly difficult. You say I am "reading things" into what he said. I made a simple statement - so it should be easy for you to identify the "things" that I am "reading into" his quote. Here is that simple statement again: a woman politely saying "I withdraw consent" without actually trying to leave the situation. Is that scenario the one to which Peikoff was referring? If not, where have I got it wrong, given that the two facts are 1) the woman says "I don't consent", and 2) the man freely continues having sex? If you disagree that those are the facts about the scenario, then please identify which are wrong, and what the actual facts are.

If I am to accept what you state, then Peikoff was addressing a scenario that I cannot imagine ever happening: a woman politely saying "I withdraw consent" without actually trying to leave the situation. Am I accurate in my description of the scenario he was describing?

If I am to accept what you say, then he was addressing a scenario that I cannot imagine ever happening: a woman politely saying "I withdraw consent" without actually trying to leave the situation. Do I have this much correct?

Even ttime says it's not clear whether his point applies. I'm not "up in arms" - it seems likely that Dr. Peikoff has simply made a poorly-worded comment, and given more time would clarify that he was referring to a legal context.

I cannot imagine a scenario in which a woman says "I do not consent to this", and a man *continues* freely having sex "regardless of what she says", that does not necessarily involve forcing her to continue on with the sex. As I said previously, a woman who doesn't consent to sex isn't going to just sit there saying politely, "please stop". If you say I am misrepresenting the scenario, then describe a scenario that accurately represents what Peikoff said, but which does not involve force, because I can't think of any.

But that's *after* the comment in question. So was he talking about the moral or the legal before that? I can only gather from the content of the comment itself (particularly the bit I specifically cited), that he was talking about the moral.

Actually, I don't even see where the context is only legal. Can you point that out? Certainly the question doesn't set that context: "Is this the moral equivalent of rape?" At what point in Peikoff's reply did he switch the context to the legal?

Because the bit I quoted doesn't appear to fit that context. And that is of no consequence?

That may be the case, though this bit doesn't fit: "that frees the man to have sex regardless of what she then says." If he was simply explaining what the law should say, he should have said, "that frees the man from legal culpability, though not necessarily moral censure." His statement as it stands appears to give consent to men to continue on their way and force the woman to let him finish. Rape does not involve physical harm? Does a woman who is involved in non-consensual sex simply sit still, saying politely, "please stop"? No, she struggles to free herself, and any force preventing her from freeing herself is likely to cause physical harm.

Of course, the next step is for Diana Hsieh to give her own answer. http://rationallysel.../proj/?ia=42068

Except that he gives a real example, so isn't it safe to assume that that example fully contains the correct context? I'll also note that he wasn't forced to give a brief answer - he could have clarified it as much as he wanted. I would think that with such a topic, it would be important to be as clear as possible. If he left out some important context, then that's unfortunate, but I have no reason to believe he did.

I would think in the case of sex, since it is an active process, that consent would need to be continually given, either verbally or through action. You consent to what you are actively taking part in. Once you actually say, "I don't consent", then you no longer consent. "Oh, you didn't realize that my definition of 'sex' also included asphyxiation? Sorry, too late to turn back now!" Does this also apply to, say, going to an abortion clinic? Once you're in the door, it's too late to say no? Your presence is consent alone?

How does one go from, "a woman should be allowed to determine the fate of the smaller-than-a-pinhead zygote growing in her body" to "people should be sent to gas chambers for not measuring up to some standard"? Please help me understand that, Avila.

To hold contradictory ideas simply means that you hold two beliefs about how the world works, and if the world did simultaneously work according to both of those beliefs, a contradiction would exist. Reason is not automatic, so there is nothing preventing you from holding ideas about the world that contradict eachother - i.e., ideas about reality that would result in a contradiction if they were simultaneously true. Any misunderstanding you have about this is simply due to equivocation - we use the same word ("contradiction") to refer to a) a state of reality (which cannot exist), and to ideas we hold about the state of reality (which can exist).

"The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions." - Ron Paul Unless, apparently, those individuals organize themselves into a state - then he has no problem with passing laws to violate individual rights.

You will find that the conclusions Objectivists have reached on specific issues are primarily driven by rationale, not feeling. Likewise, you cannot pretend to learn about Objectivism by simply examining particular conclusions on very specific issues.

Please post future replies directly in the Noodlefood blog. This topic focuses specifically on the blog poster and does not offer much value in relation to the forum.

Please understand I am fully aware of the evidence. The purpose of my 3 questions was only to try to get you to question your assumptions. Feel free to attempt to answer my original questions, but linking to the views of an organization (funded primarily by government-subsidized and -influenced manufacturers of anti-cholesterol drugs and low fat / high carb foods) whose conclusions are based solely on very weak correlation studies, is a poor argument. Here are those three questions again, for your convenience: What health reasons would force one to switch away from a low-carb diet? Why are certain traditional hunter-gatherers such as the Inuit able to do fine on extremely low-carb diets? What is a "normal diet"? Just one that has carbs? Carbs from what foods?

My only recommendations, if you go with such an approach, are to strive to find nutrient-dense foods. Lots of popular fruits that people go for on diets have been bred to be artificially high in sugar, to make them sweeter (e.g. apples, bananas, and many large fruits). I would just stick with berries. For vegetables, avoid lettuce and other fillers, and go for kale, broccoli, carrots, sweet potatoes, and anything else dense in nutrients. As for meat, do not buy into the lipid hypothesis - i.e. that increased fat intake causes increased cholesterol, which causes heart disease. Dietary animal fat is a vital component for mental and physical health. Your body regulates fat intake - it doesn't simply store whatever fat you consume. And cholesterol buildup is a repair mechanism - it is a symptom of a greater problem (inflammation), not a problem in itself. Meat, fish, eggs, liver and organs are particularly dense in a variety of nutrients, and were a part of the hominid diet throughout our evolution. Why people think these foods should no longer be in our diet after a million years, I am not sure.

As I've said, studies clearly show that calorie restriction does not work long-term, if it is not combined with a change in the contents of the diet. Your body will defend that higher weight, and you will end up gaining the weight back, if not more. This is called the "body fat setpoint" - neurobiologist Stefan Guyenet has written extensively on it. Now, most people who are actually trying to lose weight do not simply cut calories - they also cut out a lot of sweets and delicious, highly-processed foods (providing a variety of flavor, mixing sweet/fat/salty with texture, spices, and other flavor enhancers), in favor of less-processed foods. Guyenet considers one factor in the reduction of the body fat setpoint to be the reduction in the "food reward / palatibility" of these diet foods.