AndrewRyan
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AndrewRyan
-
-
I read what Edell had to say about the "myth" that it is cleaner to be circumcised. He doesn't address the issue of ineffective washing due to penile sensitivity in uncircumcised males. In fact, he comes across as being rather smug in saying "It's hard to imagine how this has persisted in an era of soap and water." What's hard to imagine is a doctor being unaware of the fact that penile sensitivity can prevent uncircumcised individuals (or their parents who bathe them) from effectively using soap and water.
If rubbing people's tonsils each day with sandpaper was demonstrated to prevent chronic tonsillitis, I wonder if Dr. Edell would find it hard to imagine that people would still be at risk of developing tonsillitis in the era of sandpaper. It really shouldn't be all that hard to imagine that just because simple preventative measures exist doesn't mean that they'll be applied effectively, especially if they hurt.
J
Where do you draw this relationship between uncircumcised males and their bathing habits? In what case has genital sensitivity ever prevented effective washing and caused negative effects? I can assert with some certainty that washing the glans with soap and water is nothing like sandpaper.
-
Nature has left us, males at least, but likely females as well, with purposeless, useless bits of extra skin in our genital areas. It's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk. Besides, it has a long history and obviously hasn't caused any problems; there's no permanent damage. It's certainly not an egregious wrong; it's little different than piercing ears.
Too, if circumcisions are done in groups as a ritualized experience, it can be a
from boyhood to manhood. Who can be against boys becoming men?If people try to forbid such procedures, who knows what else they'll be demanding in the name of the rights of children?
Foreskin and the clitoris are not useless bits of extra skin. I'm not advocating rights of children, I'm advocating individual rights. Nobody has the right to mutilate or torture someone else, regardless of what society thinks or what rituals may be practised.
-
The word circumsicion really applies only to males. It may be considered mutilation, but not much more so than pierced ears. The circumcised penis is about equal to a pristine one. So circumcision, while done for wrong resons, is mostly harmless. Boys don't end up traumatized or having abnormal sex lives. Also it's done mostly by either doctors or people with some medical training, so the risks are very small. It's a minor issue.
So-called female circumsicion is different. Look it up online, as I don't have the stomach for discussing it. It can be appropriately called Female Genital Mutilation. It's done at an older age, it's painful, mostly carried out by untrained people with plenty of risks for infection, it affects the sexual experience adversely. It should be fought hard and it should be illegal to pergorm it on girls, with or without their consent (they wouldn't know juat what they'd be consenting to).
Please do not compare circumsicion to piercings. Piercings do not remove almost have the nerves of the ears. Boys end up with less feeling in their penis, but I guess that's not traumatising. It's only a minor issue if you feel parents have the right to mutilate their children for aesthetic reasons.
-
How is this subject still going on? I don't understand how anyone could argue for genital mutilation.
-
Sanitary measure is a way to rationalize the original religious meaning and tradition of it.
I think it's barbaric, however I don't know if it should be illegal
What possible rational reason could exist for forced mutilation on another human??
-
Welcome.
If you don't mind, where did you study? -
That is a common mistake. People assume they have to mine in order to make money - not the case. There are a lot of options available. I hate the industry side of it. We call them "care bears". I myself am a pirate, and all I do is engage targets on a regular basis. There is unimaginable freedom to engage in player vs player combat (group or solo).
So you're one of those people that use force to violate other's property rights.
-
It is becoming harder and harder not to. Fox News is not a good source of news or political analysis.
Fox News is a far better source than any other news channel. Plus it has more viewers than all the others combined. At least those watching are getting a daily dose of reason.
-
Not all of the media thinks Obamedicine is good. There are a lot of conservative commentators that speak out against this plan everyday.
-
How do you know other Objectivists are not busy spreading their ideals? That seems to be the point you make, and yet I can only wonder what you have done besides writing this letter.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but the American foundation is individual rights. America's founding is a huge ace in the hole for those of us who are fighting for liberty.
While it's true that America was founded on individual rights, I believe that the "American way" now means something closer to a Christian welfare state, ie. God and Country slogans. If the people of the US return to those foundations of individual rights, then I will swiftly embrace the "American way."
-
I'm just asking questions here. Why do you "feel" that way?
Your style of writing suggests sarcasm/satire.
-
Thats true. Though they saved western civilization from communist savages and mystics. Reagan along with Thatcher were the greatest defenders of capitalism from a governmental standpoint. Rand defended capitalism from a philosophical view.
Thats not true, there's much to appreciate for capitalism from a lot of Western culture. Of course, excluding parts from mystics.
thats a bogus stance to take. You're either for preserving the American way of life or against it. there are no gray areas! I'm amazed that anyone who has read Rand could say such things!
BTW, what are people's here thoughts on Mises, Hayek, Friedman and other of the superb Western capitalist economists who worked so hard to defend and preserve capitalism against the socialist mystic savage hoards.
I believe Rand was also the greatest economist and historian. I mean to say Rand anticipated much of what Mises, Hayek, Friedman wrote in her superb novels and awesome essays!
Your first statement is debatable. Communism would eventually have collapsed regardless of Reagan or Thatcher. They clearly did not save western civilization from mystics since mysticism is still a large part of modern politics.
Western civilization must be in favor of capitalism...that's why we have an increase in welfare statism in the west.
I am also against an indefinite preservation af the "American way of life." I hope to see the day when it is replaced by a "way of life" that respects individual rights.
-
Hello,
My question is: what is the Objectivist perspective on unions and workers rights? Is breaking up unions and persecuting workers for unionizing a good thing? Would you join a union to get more benefits from your employers?
Workers can make unions if they want, as individuals they have freedom of association. Employers can fire them and have the police escort them off the property, as individuals they have property rights.
-
Though I don't believe God, God bless Reagan and Bush Sr and America! May all savages and mystics die of smallpox and/or the plague. May the flag of European civilization never cease to wave! God bless Western culture for giving us all we ever need! Whoever denies this is a savage!
Reagan, Bush Sr, and a lot of Americans are mystics. The majority of European civilization are also mystics. Culture has never given me anything, since it is an abstract concept. I would like to thank people like Ayn Rand though. Btw, I'm not a savage.
-
Regarding music, the usual argument I get is that many bands are where they are because of this. That the only direct profit they get is from concerts, which sell well because of people getting to know them through downloading. Does this make it any right?
If artists consent and make the music available for downloading then yes. If not then no.
-
Warning: this article may not be worth your time. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...over_inequality
You were correct.
-
Why give states that power? They already have that power under the constitution. We're not giving them anything. The problem isn't due to 'state meddling'. It's about the federal government confiscating enormous wealth that the states would have otherwise used to fund their own services, and then giving it back with strings attached. Quite the opposite of state meddling, it's federal government meddling, and it's unconstitutional for the reasons I've already described.
Education is not the job of local, state, or federal government regardless of the Constitution.
-
Under the constitution, that would be the choice of the individual and sovereign States, their powers being 'many and unlimited', and the local voters being able to have a more immediate impact on their local educational systems, and able to choose whether they wanted public education or not.
The Constitution includes a lot of parts that give government greater power than what a legitimate government has.
-
I used to think that indoctrination of students in public schools was a conspiracy, but now I find myself thinking that it's simply an indication or byproduct of the low caliber of teachers in public schools. An incompetent teacher can't teach students how to think properly, logically, reasonably, avoiding emotional responses and not falling prey to distractions from charlatans (logical fallacies). Instead they teach students what to think instead of how to think. They pass on all the acceptable opinions on every issue that got beaten into their heads while they were in college listening to lectures from tenured communists in tweed suits who would have never survived in the private sector.
The answer to the destructive influence of the public school system is to do what nobody's willing to do: Follow the Constitution.
It says in the 10th amendment that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. In other words, the federal government's involvement in Education is unconstitutional.
It's the whole rule of law thing, or something.
That would only be a start. Not only should the federal government not be involved in education, but state governments shouldn't be involved. Education is a job of individuals, not the government.
-
You are so lucky to have read her so early. You have spared yourself years of aimless suffering.
I find your idea of leaving printouts behind for your parents funny, because I had my mum reading Atlas by leaving my copy behind with cash inside. She's loving it, calling Ayn Rand a visionaire. Yay!
YOU'RE lucky. I couldn't get my mom to read AS unless it had a half-naked man on the front.
-
In my humble opinion, getting people interested in Rand's ideas is important. Once people become interested they can then seek out and learn the finer details of Objectivism. This important if society is ever going to change. However, no good comes from a sudden growth if the people don't understand the philosophy.
-
I'd say judge each libertarian individually. Some may be honestly mistaken, some may call themselves libertarian rather than Objectivist because even though they're mostly in agreement with Rand, they are undecided, sceptical or they may not agree on some point or points.
I wouldn't say that about all libertarians. They may draw their ideas from a broader group of thinkers and ideas but they have some kind of philosophy.
I have a friend who is a Libertarian. He's not an Objectivist because he believes in "God" but from what I've seen of him and other Libertarians they seem to have very similar ideas to us.
As to voting for Libertarians, wouldn't it be easier to enlighten a public that embraced Libertarianism than say conservatism or socialism?
-
--It's evolutionarily advantagous to have the parental/child bond. Babies are born pretty much helpless. Without loving parents, babies would not survive. Most mamals share this trait of strong parent/child attachment. Other animals, sharks for example, do not have this trait as their offspring are already developed an capable of self defense.
--Those terms are used to describe famial relationships. As for the roles, parents are providers of protection and nurture. Brother and sister roles are just famial terms, I don't think they really serve a function.
--This and your blood relation question could be combined. Blood relation simply means you share similar genes. That in itself is not enough to establish a loving realtionship. I actually do not love most of my family as they are more like strangers. I feel no unconditional love for someone because we share similiar genetic material.
--They would be strangers, and I'd have no reason to seek them out.
--Children carry on a name only. You can't live forever through your children. They just carry on a name and a memory.
Hope this helps.
The March on Washington (9/12 Project)
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted
That's unfortunate when there are so many better targets.