Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

asherwolf

Regulars
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    Married
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Colorado
  • Country
    United States
  • Biography/Intro
    I am a computer programmer in transition to other occupations. I enjoy movies, videogames, and various other things.
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

asherwolf's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I don't think you can have rights over someone. You can't have a right to their life, which is what stewardship would be in this case. So it's impossible for person A to have rights of stewardship over person B. I think finding the reason for this would illuminate why your "given rights" seem to have some fundamental problems or are meeting resistance. I'm inclined to agree with Eiuol. I have experienced altered psychotic states, and my reasoning doesn't allow me to presume I had less rights at that time. In fact, I would hope and reason that I had all my rights as derived from being a man especially at those vulnerable times for the particular purpose of protecting me. I'm however not inclined to agree that these rights might only exist because there is potential of productivity, but instead propose that these rights exist as there is potential for someone to be human enough to act in a valuable way. Individuals can be valued for various qualities, one of which is their productivity.
  2. I'll take the example of bipolar disorder specifically. Psychosis can be a symptom of bipolar disorder whether atypical or acute and mania induced. When an individual decompensates into a fully psychotic state they are unable to act rationally, and it could be argued then that they are unable to choose their actions like an unaffected individual would. Acute states are usually not permanent, but in the case of atypical psychosis the psychotic symptoms, both emotional and intellectual, can be chronic. In these chronic cases it can be difficult to impossible for the individual to choose to think or behave rationally at all times as they may have mild delusions, or disturbed emotional reactions, or even psycho-somatic physical symptoms. They can be successful in being able to choose to act rationally most of the time, but not all of the time. Since these individuals ability to say "I choose" is affected, in some cases briefly and in others constantly, should they be philosophically afforded the same rights?
  3. I would stress that rights are being based on "I choose" and NOT on what choices are being made. You still have rights when you have the ability to choose rational choices, but unfortunately choose not to do so. I think to reach a state in which there are no possible choices in an adult would require more extreme examples than those given. Also, there are other considerations, for example, does a person who is in a long term coma with little brain activity have no rights because they've lost their ability to choose? I would be ready to say not, as they could awaken, and because of the nature of what they are regardless of their current state.
  4. Soth wondered what the big deal is of seeing a naked outline on a body scanner, or getting groped by some stranger. For some people it's debilitating. I wrote an article about such a person: myself. The link: My Current Flying Situation Why should I be punished for doing nothing wrong? Why should everyone be degraded for a false sense of security? You can do ANYTHING in the name of safety. Safety alone is not a good argument.
  5. You should opt out of the full body scans every time for this to be more effective. Every time. Thanks for the info!
  6. You said you didn't want to start a fight, so it's up to you how you take these thoughts you asked for: You acknowledge you were speeding, or that you didn't know what speed you were going because of a speedometer failing which is just as dangerous. It doesn't matter what speed other cars are going. When everyone feels like they can just go whatever speed it poses HUGE risks for everyone on the road. I'm not saying you feel this way, but 'going along with traffic' is not an excuse is my main point. Here in Colorado there are areas where 70% of accidents on interstate highways are due to speeding. Speeding is very serious, but I unfortunately don't see too many people taking it seriously. If you were speeding, it doesn't matter what your car make was, what your plate was, what the officer's attitude was... you were speeding. Pay the ticket and learn.
  7. Disturbance can lead to trauma. When I speak of 'psychological damage', I'm speaking of trauma. Trauma can heal, it can be reversed, it doesn't last forever. However, it doesn't have to be risked in places that should be safe for our children (schools, and youth sections at libraries). If I had watched that video in that context as a kid I would have found it very distressing, it doesn't have to make sense to you (and I'm afraid it won't) so distressing to the point that I'd have trouble trusting sources or people I thought were there to protect me. It would be as distressing to me as if I had found a man masturbating in the park, only the difference is that I found it looking through something as benign as the encyclopedia. If we want to make 'psychological damage' reach a higher threshold, I still deal with trust issues a decade (plus) later, one factor of which (but not only the factor) was an incident of happening upon something as a boy myself. I wish that had never happened to me, but unfortunately it did, and it has stuck with me. To me that psychological damage enough, seemingly being unable to shake it. Unfortunately I can't put it better than that. If you believe this could never truly psychologically damage anyone, which you haven't outright said, then that's what you'll believe... I won't be able to convince you.
  8. I grew up on a ranch, so I saw animals copulating every year lots. I knew what was going on. I knew how sex worked mechanically when I was 7, and I knew my parents had done it. With that in mind: It's perfectly reasonable to know that something would not psychologically damage yourself, or the charges under your care. That's what you're there for. I understand that this is most likely not exactly what you are saying, but I think it's important to state that it's unreasonable to expect that if something did not cause psychological damage to you, then it will most likely not cause the same for others. Unless, for some reason, you have reason to believe you are representative of the majority, which truly is impossible. The same applies to me, I can't expect that simply because something very similar happened to me and my reaction was very traumatic (which it did, and was, for quite a while), that everyone will react the same way. Where *I'm* working from, and honestly this is not perfect, only anecdotal, is that from what I've observed of many adults and children is that that type of experience, and these types of materials in this context, may not 'harm' long term often but definitely disturb many individuals with the risk of more serious harm, not just a small minority. Every single parent I've asked in my local area (and I asked quite a canvas since I brought this up as an issue at my local library board of trustees) agreed with me that not only did they find this access in government institutions disturbing, but if their children were to fall upon it (say being silly like an early middle schooler looks up bad words in the dictionary) that their children would be disturbed as well. It's the context truly, the context of the government institution, and the context of educational material. Was I exposed to pornography (Playboy) by the age of 12? Yes. Was it a video? Did it involve actual sex? No. Was it posing as serious educational material? No. Was it shocking, and made me a participant like say, a guy in a park? No. So you're right in that sense. If we're going to use ourselves as standards of acceptance, then if in my youth I had been exposed to those types of materials as part of allegedly serious educational materials I would have found it disturbing... so I rest my case. ;-) My concern is the *risk* of serious harm to children by institutions that can't handle them individually like a parent can. I don't find that risk acceptable. Remove the institution, remove the educational context, and you're left with 'the rest of life'. That's outside of my concern. My concern is *not* that a child may ever see any of this ever (how many children alone accidentally walk in on their parents in a year?)
  9. I do not find distributing mature materials among adults objectionable. I do not find sexual education objectionable. I do not find diagrams objectionable. Every mainstream encyclopedia I could find besides Wikipedia had diagrams, and there are diagrams for a reason. I find it objectionable in the sense that if I distributed that material to a minor it would be illegal in my state, yet as long as its accessible at schools and youth computers at libraries, the government is doing it. To elaborate: I argue that there is material that is considered too mature for minors on various grounds, both from personal experience, cultural experience, and downright common sense. In my experience working with hundreds of kids, I can't imagine how the images of real-model erections, video of a grown man's ejaculation, etc. could be considered seriously educational. I am talking of children below the age of thirteen if I need to be more specific, though I believe you can go higher. I want to know what the true educational value is of those purely supplementary materials? What do they add to the information for a child? Allowing a minor to access this material, even on his own volition of typing or linking to the word penis or ejaculation, is irresponsible. I apologize for having to be graphic in advance. If I paraded a naked man into a sexual education class, or even as just personal sexual education of my child, and he (masturbated, though not in the video, and) ejaculated in front of them, I think it would be unquestionably disturbing to the majority of youths. To even be presented a video of that in a sex education curriculum could be psychologically damaging. When this is accessible in government schools, it is the same thing as doing that in sex education class. I believe it is entirely possible to relate the physical and emotional mechanics of sex in much more healthy, stable, and honestly, mature ways. I know that this topic will probably not be supported by many Objectivists because it may seem culturally and emotionally driven. I argue that it's not. Children are not adults, and we can't pretend they are. A minor cannot buy alcohol, or cigarettes for instance because of this fact. Minors process information differently, feel differently, judge reality differently (even arguably impaired), and are physiologically different than adults. What is the EXACT right thing to do? I'm afraid I don't have that answer, but I don't believe allowing this material on youth computers or in the public schools is it. NOTE EDIT: If a parent wants to show this to their child and explain it to them, that's fine by me.
  10. I think an animation of intercourse cross-sections is not too bad, like encyclopedia britannica has on their site. However, unfortunately I couldn't see the video... but I did want to comment. For example to me, showing an animation of getting an erection, or an animation of the 'moistening' of the vagina, (or actual models!) crazy details like that that would seem more to titillate than educate about the essential material is inappropriate and ineffectual when presented to anyone age 7 to 12. I don't mean to derail this entirely, so if need be, I can move this to another thread... but anybody concerned about the accessibility of Wikipedia in their children's elementary to middle (or even high) schools, or in their children's libraries? Look up the anatomical parts and their functions on wikipedia (particularly ejaculation). I did this in my elementary school, and at the youth computers in the library. It was shocking to me that this was accessible, more shocking than a video like this. I complained to the school and they blocked it. I complained that this wasn't living up to the filtering standard put in by Colorado for youths to the library and after a month and a half of deliberation they completely ignored me. Anyone else concerned about this?
  11. I'm not super versed, so take my reply with a grain of salt, I may be wrong so I'll learn something too. I've always taken it to mean that an attribute is like a part of an abstraction, like a leg is part of a man. A characteristic is something very particular to one man to further the example. Please correct me anyone if I'm wrong... but that's how I've always read it. Asher
  12. Hahahahahahahahahaha.... I don't want to put up a 'me too!' post, but that was really good softwareNerd. Thanks!
  13. Note, I am a man. I do respond to qualities of character more than physical appearance. I suppose I am in the minority in your opinion, but that's no matter. I am talking about standards that are so precise they preclude any realistic possibility of being fulfilled, but I'm also talking about not being able to be flexible at all. To be honest, for somebody to say, my partner has to be this perfect way or ratio or whatever for enough things to rule out most of the realistic population, they are only defeating themselves. I could easily say I want a tall hispanic with green eyes, who had to have abs of steel, and a certain length appendage... and I'd probably be disappointed for a long time when I couldn't find a good match that met not only my character qualities but those physical qualities as well. Personally, and yes this is personal advice, I'd rather be happier being a little more flexible about the things that don't matter as much. If having perfect abs is more important to someone than honesty or integrity... then that's a problem of priorities. The fact is the op's standards are so precise in this situation [he says many others would find her beautiful] it is blocking him from having a possibly fulfilling relationship (a defense mechanism to protect the individual from a relationship which they couldn't handle? I don't get this...). This is just my opinion, and I don't really see any more advice coming from me and my position that others are finding useful here. In that light, I'm leaving the discussion disappointed once again in my male Objectivist counterparts.
  14. Your observation is very astute. There are reasonable limitations, I'm not saying everyone should be bisexual and throw a blind eye to age, or what might *really* turn them off. After all I said that even *I* had preferences. However, if that 84 year old morbidly obese man had those virtues I mentioned, I would still find him a great friend and person to value... just maybe not have sex with. If THAT'S what IAmMetaphysical is saying... then I don't have much a problem, but I don't think it is.
×
×
  • Create New...