Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jackethan

  1. Having a fetish "may" interfere with complete sexual expression. May is the key word there. Obviously, if you can't get off without rubbing your hand on a latex balloon, you want to work to train your mind to lose that fixation (or find someone else who likes balloons too.) Most fetishes are results of subconscious training people do to their minds. Some of the most irrational fetishes -are- a result of people surrendering their willpower and just following the 'whim' of their body, or of the moment. However, if a man who has a fetish for stockings and becomes aroused when his wife is in stockings, how is his fetish irrational? Through the use of this fetish his wife can signal to him covertly that she's interested in sex, or get him interested in sex when he isn't. The sharing of healthy fetishes can only lead to a stronger sexual bond, which leads to a stronger spiritual bond. I agree with Bluecherry's analysis of masculine/feminine and gender. Apart from the physical differences there is very little difference between men and women that is not a result of environmental conditioning. This conditioning starts from birth. When you have a baby girl you dress her in pink, when you have a boy you dress him in blue. Everything you do and say to your child while raising bears the stigma of your particular bias for their gender. This is a good and natural part of raising a child, a child should have a gender identity, I don't believe we should all begin raising children androgynously. However since these values and behaviors are resultant from environmental forces, they can be changed. Sometimes they can be changed very easily, sometimes they are more difficult, however they are always changed voluntarily. Christians today are trying to use psychology to manipulate the minds of homosexual men and women to try and 'excise the gay' out of them. The results are usually very poor. A truly interested man or woman could change his or her sexuality through the use of psychology, however it has to be done voluntarily. The main reason Christians give for why these people should change from gay to straight is guilt, and guilt is not a healthy emotion. Nor should the choice to be gay or straight be left up to emotion at all. I do believe sexuality is a choice. It is definitely heavily influenced throughout childhood, from birth on. For some people a change can happen easily over time, whereas others don't even see how such a change is possible for themselves. This is neither a result of 'genetic' preferences, nor environmental psychological determinism. It is simply that some people made the choice at a very early age, and have since not had to question it. If this is the case for you, great! There is no reason to change something you are happy with. However, for others, the choice to be gay, straight, or bi has to do with rational judgement based on values. To say that there is no way to choose sexual preference, for anybody, is to surrender volition.
  2. Allow me to stir the pot! What if you make a trade with someone, trading money for some item of theirs. At the time of the transaction, you believe you deserve the item based on the amount of money you gave, and you're pretty sure they deserve the money for the item. The next day you find the same item, same quality, same maker, for much cheaper than you paid. Who deserves what now? Obviously it's a case of caveat emptor, however did you deserve to be treated fairly? Did the guy who sold to you deserve your money? And on a separate note, how do you go about psychologically divorcing your feelings on whether you deserve your item back and the rational fact that you should have shopped around. Is the blame squarely on you, how do you accept the blame?
  3. You don't "Dishonor" anybody, this isn't ancient China. You made some mistakes. Now you can rectify them. If your family and friends dislike you for being honest with yourself and being true to reality, then they don't really have much worth as friends do they? Less self pity, and more celebration. You've graduated into the real world now!
  4. She built on other people's ideas instead of making up her own from scratch and that's somehow bad? Ayn Rand developed the first principled, coherent, non-contradictory philosophy. She didn't even coin the term Lassiez-faire capitalism. It was first identified by Adam Smith. She drew influence from many philosophers, to make one cohesive and integrated philosophy. As far as classical liberalism: Classical liberalism means "Likes new ideas." It means to prefer nonrestrictive freedoms over old traditions. So yeah, you could call her a classical liberal. Is that bad? Concepts lose their original meaning for many reasons, including the decay of education, and the ulterior motives of various political movements in 'redefining' various words. What I'm confused about is...you seem to have posted this because you're learning enlightenment history and you're discovering things you didn't know before...so...why is the overall tone of your post surprise, fear, and disbelief? EDIT: Adam Smith didn't coin the term Capitalism, so I fixed that sentence.
  5. It's not irrational to want to mitigate future strife by acting to ensure someone's selfish desire is fulfilled, particularly in the case of family members who tend to not go away. Obviously if the family member is being altruist and causing you more trouble than value you should evaluate your relationship with them and possibly not spend as much time with them, but I wouldn't say it is contra Objectivism to say, perhaps, "No, on second thought, we'll do the movie some other time, you go have fun at your party with your friends."
  6. The (conservative) radio station that (my dad listens to) I heard yesterday said he'd already done away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  7. Loreena McKennitt - The Highwayman Trying to get in the mood for Halloween.
  8. Christmas was a pagan holiday, the pagans weren't into the whole ascetic altruist thing, they were more into having fun and getting drunk, a decidedly selfish mode of jubilation. Since this seems to be the place where everyone discusses how their fam did Christmas, I'll share mine! My family did christmas pretty normally. We had a big tree that we decorated while listening to Mannheim Steamroller christmas music and we'd have presents under the tree and a big meal of lechon (roast pork) rice, beans, platanos (fried bananas), and red bean soup. It's my favorite time of year, even the silly music.
  9. Motive is thought. Thought can not be criminally punished. Why you buy a gun can only be known to anyone if you tell them. Even in such cases the 'witness' of someone saying they want a gun so they can kill people is heresay. There is no way to know the motive of a person when they buy a gun, and therefore it is impossible to legislate that only those who want to kill are banned. The only option is blanket ban, or ban by arbitrary criteria. Both cases violate individual rights.
  10. Are there any citable examples where Yaron agrees with Beck on something anti-Objectivist?
  11. Your brother was being silly when he said you shouldn't have invited her to use your computer. He's not your dad, it's not his house, and not his computer. If he thinks you're sleeping with his girlfriend he should ask you, not sit around worrying about "Semblances of impropriety." Your brother and his girlfriend were both being abusive and manipulative to you when they came to tell you about all the bad things the other had done. You are not in their relationship, you can't really know the context of their relationship, and any attempt to involve you in a fight is just petty, abusive, and irrational. The minute that either of them tried to get you on one's side, you should've said you're not getting involved, and you're not going to talk to either of them until they decide to grow up and act like adults. The rest of the problems after this just stem from handling this situation wrong. They were both being childish, and you responded by acting similarly childish. You should've told them both that they're going to have to resolve their arguments away from you. As far as this post, and the current discussion with your brother: You've already lost this one. You accepted his argument from authority, that it makes any sense whatsoever for him to say 'find an Objectivist who agrees with you.' It's just more irrational, petty behavior intended to involve other people in something -they have no way of knowing the full context of-. Your brother also mentioned his discontent with the medium because it's out of context and various other reasons. This means you can sit here all day and get every single person on the forum to completely agree with you, and your brother will still write it off as just the problem with how you posted to us anyway. If you want to repair your relationship with your brother, meet him in person, apologize for being immature, tell him that even though you still don't feel you have enough damning evidence to cut off the girl, you did, and do love him and did not mean to insinuate that you chose her over him. You should tell him that you think he was being irrational to say 'just take my word for it' and that the both of them were being irrational with their argument and their game-playing. Tell him that even if he disagrees with that judgement you want to continue to have a relationship with him because you love him too much to lose him over something silly like this. As far as the girl goes, if she's not in contact with you, it would seem she's done with you. I would not make attempts to find her or communicate with her unless it's through your brother.
  12. It is blanket psychologizing to imply that -all- socialists are going to be more reasonable, or even to imply that more socialists than christians are more reasonable. It is also generalizing to say that all members of the republican party are religious, and to say that all members of the libertarian party are irrational. There is a generous gulf between what politicians do and say, which affects the definition and ideology of their political movement, and what normal people think. The main mistake I see with the 'ignore the Right' argument is that it seems to completely ignore that: A. people are individuals and B. it ignores psychology. There is no evidence that it is easier to break apart the compartmentalized mix of christianity and somewhat free market ideals of a republican than it is to attack the dogmatic socialism of a Marxist leftist. This is ignoring the fact that a very small percent of leftists are actually dogmatic socialists at all. There are members of either party whom are only members because they despise the opposing party, a position which has no ideology at all behind it, only an anti ideology. The left may have a logical connection between its morality and its politics, however it does not follow that this will make them any easier to convince or reason with. To say it does is to ignore psychology. There could be any number of reasons and circumstances under which a leftist might be completely irrationally opposed to Objectivist views and a rightist could agree to them. The question of a "target audience" also ignores the purpose of making these ideas known. It is not for us to select who will agree with us, that is for each individual to decide after hearing or reading the ideas. I would also like to reiterate my previous point that the goal of any ideological movement is to appeal to children, regardless of what political party their parents are in.
  13. That is still a broad generalization to say that the liberals follow that train of thought at all as opposed to simply agreeing on the major hot topics and divorcing their morality from it altogether. As has been said before political parties -are not- philosophical movements. There is no guaranty whatsoever that any member of such a party has taken the time to rationalize out that particular chain of thought in regards to their morality. If you were saying that the ideology of the modern liberal movement is more intellectually honest than the ideology of the modern conservative movement, then you would be correct. However, the individuals which make up that movement do not have the consistency to even understand the principles involved -in their own political party.- If you want to start 'targeting' a particular audience to effect widespread cultural change, then target children. It is through the education of children that an ideology gains widespread acceptance. The morality of altruism has had many generations to take root. I do not believe it will take as long for rational self interest to dominate, however there is no rushing it. We must get the word out through every possible medium, so long as in doing so we do not compromise with falsehoods and looters, so that the next generation will have the seed of these ideas planted, and they will be that much more acceptable. Childrens' minds must be affected, be they the children of democrats or of republicans or of libertarians.
  14. Philosophical precedent is definitely relevant, however not all members of the modern political parties are aware or even agree with the philosophies which are their progenitors. Political parties are not cohesive philosophical movements, as they completely ignore the first two branches of philosophy. It is for this reason that Ayn Rand believed it is impossible to spread the ideals of Objectivism via a political party, as they are not about ideas at all. Many members of any political party will have significant compartmentalization in their personal philosophies. Not everyone inside the party is a mindless drone just following any and all ideas spouted by the party's founding principles, or the leaders of the party. Because of this, ignoring an entire group of people simply because they follow one of the major political parties which has many mistaken views is irrational. It is possible that people who belong to the republican party or libertarian party are only there because they do not know what -they- want but they know that they do not agree at all with socialism. This seems to be an admirable trait. I would also like to point out that ad hominem is neither pertinent nor honest.
  15. I disagree with that premise of your argument which says that Objectivists currently collaborate and agree with the modern right and libertarianism. If you prefer I shall ignore that disagreement as I do not think it has any relevance to your question. I was a conservative before I became an Objectivist. I do not believe that members of the modern political left are inclined to be any more intellectually honest or rational than members of the modern political right, or than libertarians. I have met democrats who are nihilists, democrats who agree that we all can't help but be selfish, and that's why we should be sacrificed to those who need, and republicans who are trotskyites. Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support the claim that democrats are more intellectually honest than republicans? Do you feel that targeting -both- audiences is detrimental somehow? I do not see why one should not try to appeal to people of all political parties so long as in the process one does not compromise one's own principles or sanction immoral behavior of others.
  16. When has that happened, can you cite any examples of Objectivists who represent Objectivist organizations agreeing with anti-Objectivist political stances? EDIT: Changed "issues" to "stances" for clarity.
  17. What kind of collaboration and agreement have Objectivists given to the religious right and libertarianism?
  18. If you read the wiki for the Gold Party (translation of the Gullpartiet) you can see that they're sort of nationalists. They want to regulate trade to 'give Norwegian companies an advantage.' Maybe we can change their mind on this, but I don't know what else they might stand for. The wiki for the Technocratic party that is currently in power doesn't mention much about its ideology.
  19. Allow me to be the first to welcome you to the forums Ricky! I am also gay and I am an Objectivist so I think we have something in common. Your story is similar I think to many others' here. My first question is, have you read any of Ayn Rand's books, if so which ones? You're welcome to ask questions around here, and I'm sure you'll find people, some may agree, some may disagree with you. We also have chat, you may have noticed, I hang around there most of the time if you'd like to chat there. Welcome.
  20. I think we should have one or two people assess the other political parties in Norway and meantime everyone else work on establishing a political party of our own (this will take gold). Does anybody speak Norwegian? As far as I can see our opposition in Norway is mostly socialist liberals. As far as making our own country, I believe our options are to conquer Norway politically and have that be our nation or find some other country to conquer politically. I don't know if we can establish our own state. It looks like at least some of the people in Norway speak English.
  21. More straw men. I never stated that anyone has the right to dictate to anyone else how to run their business, or who their customers should be. The photographer in your case was obviously a victim of an immoral person making a case before a corrupt judge. While you're too busy trying to rationalize a judeo-christian political view behind a veil of 'practicality.' (a tactic that republicans use all the time, one which is wholly un-Objectivist.) You could be spending your time and effort lobbying for corrupt judges and lawyers to be weeded out of our system. You have not at all refuted my point that gays have a right to all those things I mentioned, or a right to marriage. Your only point is that in giving gays those rights, one starts down a -slippery slope- (fallacy) that leads to churches being forced to marry gays against the pastor's beliefs. I refuse to be denied my individual rights on the basis that corrupt looters and thieves who work the system could possibly continue to be corrupt, loot, and thieve. Your points are all still just as vacuous even when you stamp 'if you don't agree then you're not an Objectivist' at the end. I advise you learn the logical fallacies so that you can color your political opinions with reason instead of pragmatism.
  22. I have to hand it to you, that was one of the most compartmentalized, rationalized strawman arguments I have seen thus far. No gay man I know, including me, even -wants- to be married by a church. The only reasons I support gay marriage is because if my boyfriend or 'husband' got sick and was in the hospital, I would not have a legal right to see him, if his family denied me. If I wanted to marry a man in another country and bring him here to America like any straight person can do, I cannot. There are many other things gays can't do without being married. So, let's tally. Gay people have -actual rights violated- right now. If a gay person went to the state government with a contract saying 'I want to be this person's partner and I want our union to be afforded all the same rights as a heterosexual marriage under the law.' He would be laughed at. On the other hand, there are not currently, nor have there been suggested any laws which require churches to marry anybody to anybody else. So you come up with a hypothetical slippery slope where some whackjob fags get a court (somehow) to uphold an idea that they have a "right" to be married specifically by their church. So. What. Rights are a principle, they apply to gays and everyone else. Your argument is essentially 'This law opens the door up for immoral people to get corrupt judges to set a precedent based on no real law.' It is a silly attempt to throw the principle out the window and attempt to use pragmatism to shoot something down. Oh, and your conclusion about all gays being either socially inept or mentally deficient is vacuous psychologizing, which you yourself have admitted is based on no real empirical evidence, only on your anecdotal experience. Stop getting your political advice from nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh and realize that not everyone who opposes your viewpoint is a crazy leftist commie. EDIT: Grammar.
  23. I liked it pretty well. Been a while since I've seen it but it was pretty funny to me. Another movie that's not as sinister as everyone claims it is if you ignore the fact that the author of the source is Upton Sinclair.
  24. I was only spanked once as a child, one time, because my father heard me say a curseword and he got angry (he's a born again christian.) Immediately after my mother came and told him never to lay a hand on me again. Other than that, which I don't remember very well, I never needed to be spanked. Will I spank my children? Probably not. I do not believe that children are born with 'inherent tendencies' to be 'demon children' or misbehave, so if I find myself in a situation where my child is exhibiting spoiled or rotten behavior, I'd assume I've not communicated some point or other and fostered some kind of contradiction or gap in my child's understanding. I'd then work to find out what it is, and try to fix it, if such is possible. In such a situation, where I have accidentally led my child to a situation where he or she misbehaves in a time or place that I cannot stop and explain, my first recourse would be to remove the child and myself from the situation. Failing all of that, I would probably resort to spanking. Further, if my child is beating on other children, or other people, and continued to do so despite my attempts to convince him of its futility or immorality, I might resort to spanking. I don't think children beating eachother is a good or acceptable behavior, even if it's just boys. EDIT: To clarify, I do not believe my child will develop the extreme behavioral habits which would require me to spank them, is why I said I probably wouldn't.
  • Create New...