John Link

I believe Ninth Doctor was referring to anyone who had defended Peikoff's original podcast. I would think that such people would now either disagree with Peikoff's acknowledgment of his error, or accept it and retract their previous defense of the original podcast.

That's correct. Thanks for seeing through our apparent disagreement.

You contradict yourself. Saying "Stop" or "No more" would be withdrawing consent.

If this weren't a leap year then March 4th would be a Saturday, not a Monday, so that doesn't explain Amy's mistake.

This appears on Amy Peikoff's website: "He plans to discuss this issue in his next unfilled podcast, which will be the first Monday in March (March 4)." I now see that the statement above is inconsistent, since the first Monday in March, tomorrow, is the 5th. In any case I expect that we'll soon have something interesting to discuss.

T minus 2 and counting.

I'd like to see the text that's provoking all the controversy. Can anyone post a link to it?

Why would a true believer ever doubt the statement of one who speaks ex cathedra?

Do you ever stack things in the right places when you see them stacked incorrectly? Anal person that I am, I'm sometimes tempted to do that, but so far I think I've resisted the urge.

I note that while Jason Stotts used a tone that could be considered harsh, his use of the harsh terms was not directed to Leonard personally, but rather to his opinions: "his position on rape is both disgraceful and disgusting" "I did not expect him to hold such a reprehensible view of rape" Ok, here it gets personal: "I don’t know how anyone of good moral character or intelligence could actually advocate what Peikoff advocated." Frankly, I find Jason's use of "disgraceful", "disgusting", "reprehensible", and "anyone of good moral character or intelligence" perfectly appropriate. Dan, below your picture it says that you've made a total of two posts. Haven't you been around here for a long time, or was that another Dan Edge?

To the extent that anyone other than Objectivists knows anything about Peikoff he will be perceived as a spokesman for Objectivism. His website asserts that "Dr. Peikoff is Rand's legal and intellectual heir - and the world's foremost authority on Objectivism", so he certainly presents himself as the chief spokesman for Objectivism, just as the Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ.

Apparently we'll have to wait until March 4th to find out what Leonard has to say about his date-rape statement. In the meantime I'm curious about two things: 1) What would you like to hear Peikoff say? I.e., given that he made the statement he already did, what would be a satisfying followup from one who presents himself, and is seen by others, as a significant spokesman for Objectivism? 2) What do you predict he will say? I would like like to hear Leonard say something along the lines of what I've written in imagined followup #1 in post 185 above, and I would be quite impressed with him if he comes anywhere close to that. I predict his answer will be similar to the imagined followup #2 in my post 185, but I won't be surprised if his March 4 podcast sounds more like imagined followup #3 in post 185.

I look forward to reading the retraction or defense of his statement Peikoff provides. Below are some possibilities I see. I'll leave it to you to imagine Peikoff's tone of voice as you read what follows. 1) Please ignore completely what I said in that podcast. My statement was clearly an endorsement of rape, and I now retract it entirely. It's really no excuse for the ridiculous statement I made, but I was functioning on only two hours of sleep when I made that recording and I was clearly not talking sense. As some have suggested, maybe my subconscious was focused on the rape scene in The Fountainhead and another scene in the same book in which Roark tells Wynand that consent, once given, may never be withdrawn. Who knows where some of the nonsense I say comes from! But in any case I unequivocally retract my previous statement. 2) Now I know that many of you are quite up in arms about a certain podcast I recently posted, in which I allegedly made a statement that some, but not all, would say is an endorsement of date rape. How can this possibly be, that the intellectual heir to Ayn Rand, would make such an endorsement? Well, I did say that there are certain contexts in which a woman can't withdraw her consent to having sex once she has given it. So it's all a matter of context. I didn't say that consent may not be withdrawn in all, or even in most contexts, only that there are some contexts in which it may not be withdrawn. If I recall correctly I believe there is such a context given by Miss Rand near the end of The Fountainhead. I don't remember the page so I'll leave it to you to find it. 3) Look, if a woman, scantily dressed, goes to a hotel room late at night with an alpha male, what the hell does she think is going to happen? I stand by my statement, and I don't care what my ex-wife has to say about it!

It looks like Leonard is going to revisit his views about date rape in a podcast on March 4. For whatever it's worth, Amy Peikoff does not agree with Leonard about whether consent to have sex may be withdrawn. See http://dontletitgo.com/2012/02/17/on-leonard-peikoffs-brief-podcast-discussion-of-the-kobe-bryant-case/ Is Amy the daughter of Leonard?

Refute? Debunk? Ridicule? Mock? Shame? Blow the whistle on? Rain on his parade? Take the wind out of his sails? Burst his bubble? Stick a pin in his balloon? What word would best describe what the boy did when he said that the emperor has no clothes?

I thought February was African-American History Month or Black History Month, not African History Month. Am I mistaken? Anyway, here's what Morgan Freeman had to say about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLg7D7zxTrA

That's more like it!

Are you calling the intellectual heir to Ayn Rand a loose cannon? I'm scandalized!

There's another scene from The Fountainhead that might also be in play here. The following conversation between Wynand and Roark, in the company of Dominique, appears on page 565 of this edition: http://www.amazon.co...28824843&sr=8-1 Wynand asked: "Howard, that 'Yes'-once granted, can it be withdrawn?" She wanted to laugh in incredulous anger. It was Wynand's voice that had asked this; it should have been hers. He must look at me when he answers, she thought; he must look at me. "Never," Roark answered, looking at Wynand.

Hear for yourself. Peikoff on Date Rape.mp3

Exactly! Thanks to google's cache we can listen to Peikoff's statement while his site is down. I googled "rape" and specified a search of peikoff.com. Here's a link to the relevant result: http://webcache.goog...off.com&ct=clnk I've downloaded the audio file just in case it gets disappeared.

I'm also horrified at the extent of the attempts by participants in this forum to rationalize Peikoff's statement.

I'm horrified as well at Peikoff's statement.

I enjoyed the film despite the fact that I think it was poorly done. For anyone who had not read the book I expect it would make no sense at all, and for anyone who had read the book I expect it would be a disappointment. Here's a link to an extensive review that I consider to be right on the mark: The One Thing That Would Have Made ‘Atlas Shrugged’ A Far Better Film | Film School Rejects

Obviously Rand's definition is not quite right (provision for ownership of some property by government is necessary) and obviously Peikoff's answer is completely wrong (government might rent some property privately owned but most property used by government, certainly tanks and bombs, ought to be owned by government).