Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

asherwolf

Regulars
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by asherwolf

  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.
  15. I'm not going to debate what is beautiful on here, but I have to comment on this as it pertains to the advice this guy is giving. It's 'damagingly hypocritical' to be intensively attractive and yet regard it as unimportant or valueless? As I said in a previous post, many people have told me I'm pretty attractive as a physical package (not necessarily 'hot' by today's standards), but I place little value on it in the long run. It's nice and a perk of my existence that this is so, but what 'value' does it really give me? It's an accident of my birth. I can understand more if you're speaking of say, exercising, or eating healthy, and trying to be slimmer and healthier looking as best you can (let's face it, not everyone in the world can lose 100 lbs, it's just the way it is), but to say that anyone who professes love for the exceptional yet holds a place for realism is hypocritical is... really questionable. This man talks of 'top spots' of value... and as an Objectivist I have to speak up. These are MY top spots for value: honesty (someone who always adheres to the truth even if they don't like it), rationality (they are consistent and deal with reality), integrity (they will do the right thing), and pride (they are proud of being true). ANYONE who has those qualities is a potential mate to me, and to me THAT is a love of the exceptional, the bright, and the glorious in humanity. Whether I'm attracted to something physical on somebody comes later and is purely a preference, not derived from evolution, society, or biology. To me THAT is greatness, and I wish I could impart that kind of attitude on our original poster, and on IAmMetaphysical.
  16. In reply to the original question, here's the experience I had with my partner going on six years now. I loved his personality, I loved his values, I loved his sense of life and fun and the things he was interested in and the breadth of his experience. I came to love everything about him, and he fell in love with me quickly. I will speak frankly, my partner is a very unique looking individual, and he is not 'ugly' or 'bad looking', however he is no 'model of physical greatness'. His hair has receded and now he just has wisps on the top of his head, he's rotund, he has man-boobs, and when I first saw him I was literally shocked. I didn't know what to make of him, I didn't even know if I was attracted to him. Me? Everyone has always told me how above average attractive I am, not necessarily stunning, but I have a great smile, a nice round face, and I'm averagely lean and thin... so this wasn't 'unattractive meet unattractive'. I probably could have netted much more different looking men, who were initially much more attractive to me, I just didn't for reasons I'll explain in a different post. The whole point of this is: I was in love with a man I wasn't necessarily super attracted too, and never imagined I would have physically fallen for to be honest. I approached it this way, I knew this man met all my requirements of the values I was looking for in a man, and I knew that our relationship needed to turn sexual eventually. We just made it easy, laid back, and didn't expect things from each other that we couldn't do. We moved slowly from being in the same room enjoying ourselves (I'm using vague language instead of graphic detail, so try to follow me) to being closer, to snuggling and smooching in a more sexual way, to etc. I built it up, and now, I'm physically attracted to him enough to be sexual. Whether that's a result of love or re-programming or what I don't know but it worked, and I'm glad it worked! Love without sex is not really love, it's extreme closeness. If you feel even unable to do this, and I'm afraid you might given that you 'cringe when she gets out of the shower'... then get out of the relationship now because Sophia is right: (Sorry if the quote formatting is wrong) "Perhaps you don't know what love is because from what you describe you are not in love. You want to be this guy who can love this girl but you are not. As a result you are being cruel to this woman. It is probably the most hurtful thing in a romantic context"
  17. I really don't see that. I'll have to retract my earlier claim that someone said that less beautiful or less intelligent individuals should only strive for the same, as I can't find where I specifically got that from. However, I think whatever 'childish' things I said, and the conclusion I just came to in the previous sentence can be summed up as such: (*ahem* Hunchback of Notre Dame *ahem*) ... or the fact that as Kain pointed out, less beautiful actresses have eclipsed much more beautiful, or even ugly, ones in the past. I'm only taking things to a logical conclusion. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye, or apparently speak the same language. For the record however, I have read every single word in this thread, and regardless of whether you agree, have understood it well in the context of all the other language used here and things considered. If I seem rude and disrespectful, it's only in the degree to that which is being considered. Are dystopias disrespectful? That's all I have painted from what I see as the core elements of this argument.
  18. Okay, I'm glad to have cleared that up. Since the article in question was bent in a more romantic fashion, then necessarily in a more global context (despite the discussion going there), I will focus on that. The purpose then is to have a mate that is attractive to you and states, or personifies, your moral ideals. Since beauty and intelligence are objective values, and those who value them are more moral, then any eligible mate must be both beautiful and intelligent. How beautiful? Don't stop at anything less than romanticist perfection (remember that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder), since anything less would demonstrate that the valuer in question was somehow less moral. Acne and warts are ugly, so always perfectly clear skin, and asymmetry has proved less biologically/sexually attractive so of course you have to count out any breasts larger than the other... what, you can't see yourself down there? Too fat and the valuer's morals may be tarnished. How intelligent? Don't stop at above-average intelligence, when you could have the inventor of the motor that stopped the world... when it's invented that is. This is addressed to all posters. However, why stop at romance, when this can apply to the context and purpose of your friends too... or how you value every human being in a global context? If I value drool-fest seizure-boy because he had a good sense of humor and a passion for fun, it's obviously because I don't have a 'decent view' of humanity somewhere in my value structure (that being reflected in his abnormalities). If that's not how this is supposed to come across, someone's done a poor job of it. I didn't realize valuing beauty and intelligence meant disregarding to the point of discarding every person out there who didn't fit some romanticist ideal. Nor did I realize it meant condemning them to a life of lesser moral values (to paraphrase another poster: "the physically abnormal and those of low intelligence should just accept what they have and only strive for others of the same"). If they are striving to value that which is less than beautiful, wouldn't that make them less moral? My accusation of context dropping wasn't addressed in the brief time between when I posted and when I've come back, but it was about art and reality. The two are different. It's too unfortunate for me to fathom having to explain further, thus I have the inability to do so. I can only hope somebody else has the proper words. This thread is ridiculous.
  19. I may just be totally lost, but, I'm deeply disturbed by the idea that Objectivism would paint a more "objectively beautiful" person (naked, as they are genetically) as more moral. Or in any application like it, say as in the mentally challenged example, as mental handicaps (including mental illness) could be considered intellectually ugly. Are some people here actually saying that a 'more objectively beautiful' person by purpose of genetics alone is actually more moral, or that a genius is somehow more moral when compared to 'objectively ugly' people or those of sub-optimal intelligence? And if moral isn't the right word, am I still safe to assume that we are then talking about 'objectively valuable' as moral ideals? I am not turning a blind eye to the fact that certain aspects of individuals can be more appealing than others in some cases, particularly those involving a great intellect, or attractive features, but I will never accept that somehow dwarfs, hunchbacks, Down's Syndrome sufferers, fat people suffering from thyroid imbalances, and those with below average IQs are somehow less valuable (or able to be valued) as human beings simply because they don't conform to some artistic standard. That's some serious context dropping. To use an example of Atlas Shrugged: Dagny was described in one section (and no, I can't cite it, sorry) as not being particularly beautiful except for having a great set of legs. Does that make her less able to be valued than Lillian who in one section was described as very pretty except for eyes that did not match her face? I knew a kid who had big eyes, suffered from seizures, and couldn't talk because of a lack of control over his mouth and a constant stream of drool running down his shirt. He was an absolutely amazing person, and I would never trade him for some more 'objectively beautiful' version of himself. That wouldn't make him more 'valuable' to me. Reality is the basis for art, it is the source from which we can draw upon to make perfect statements under our control. Reality isn't art itself, and in no way must somehow conform to all of its standards or else it's not worthy. If that's what has been forgotten here, I have to say this thread disgusts me.
  20. I'm only here to participate like I said before, but I think I may be missing something here that other people are seeing. Should a school activate a camera while a laptop is in someone's home to monitor the activity in that home? Absolutely not, that's a clear violation of so many things. Should a school activate a camera on a laptop that is on loan to a student who has taken it home when that student attempts to do something in violation of the school's technology terms of use or even worse an illegal activity (such as attempt to bypass the content controls, or harass a classmate)? I ask why not? Somebody is using that particular laptop, owned by the district, to do something improper, and a necessary part of risk prevention is to assess who that person is for preventative measures to be taken for the future. The general feeling I get here, and I don't know if I'm speaking out of turn (I don't intend to turn this into a debate, this'll be my last post on the topic), is that people have this across the board absolute policy that if that laptop enters the home no screenshots, and no facial captures (note the terminology, not house activity captures), are permitted at all, no matter what. In the case of a loan, it's not the student's laptop, it's the districts, and as an institution they have the right to protect themselves from liabilities, government or not. Like I wrote above, there's a big difference between capturing information from a laptop because of how that particular laptop is being used at that particular time, and monitoring individuals in their homes outside of laptop use. Personally I find the first permissable, and the second outrageously wrong. My question is, and this question is NOT assuming that the stance of monitoring is correct, ... what is stopping people from using a different computer? Or closing the laptop during non-use? Educational laptops are not (typically) meant to be loaned out so that people can use them for personal use like playing games, chatting on IM with friends, or talking on Skype outside of an educational scope, so I shouldn't imagine this would be that difficult given some discipline.
  21. The situation as BoingBoing painted it is definitely dire and grim, and is a total overstepping of every rightful boundary. I agree with sNerd that those may not be all the facts, and that loss-prevention may be a key to this story. If that's the case, I don't think a web camera is the MOST effective theft-recovery/-deterrent tool, but it is a tool that the district, the laptop being their property on loan (assuming that's the set-up), has a right to use. I was previously employed as part of an IT paraprofessional in a public school district and I this is what I know from experience. First, in regards to anti-theft, other anti-theft devices and programs than just web cams are obviously more effective and should be employed. Second, in regards to cameras and screenshots, I have to disagree with sNerd. While this may make me the bane of several here, I personally implemented software at our school that combined with our already useful screen-capture/monitoring/desktop control that could use the built-in camera to monitor in real-time (but not record), or in a blink from a single admin command capture a screen shot with a capture from the built-in camera without the user's knowledge. These capabilities existed for all computers linked to the school network. All students and faculty would sign a yearly technology use agreement with the school from K-12 (substituting guardian signatures for those too young) that outlined that all district computers were to be utilized for business concerning the activities of the district, being administration and education. It also was explained to all technology users and was made widely known that user's desktops and built-in cameras could and would be monitored at any given time. This applied to laptops issued to individuals that could be taken home (our district had few). It was never feigned that users on any district owned machine had any expectation of privacy. Such an expectation, it was explained, and I happen to agree, could only exist when the computer was your property on your own network. Why did I implement such an Orwellian-esque program or support such software or policies? Many rational reasons. A. The district has the right to determine what it's privacy policies are in regards to their technology when it comes to matters not touched upon by any federal or state mandates. (I'm putting this in here in expectation of many citings of privacy laws. I'm not suggesting the school has the right to not follow the law, it obviously must follow the law.) These privacy policies were made known, very well known in fact, and nobody pretended it was otherwise. 1. With the desktop control software, I many times administered technical support across the building efficiently without having to leave the lab, which was half the time filled with children and one teacher who also were requiring support. 2. The district had a strict network use policy it had to maintain that was mandated by the government. Numerous things were implemented, but chief among them was a content filter that would block inappropriate, un-lawful, or other resources that did not fall under the domain of district use. Users that might circumvent this system in any way obviously met with consequences. Likewise, using district computers to construct hate-speech (photoshopped pictures, flyers, uploading inappropriate videos), online or offline harassment, or access another person's account were considered network use violations. Particularly in the case of laptops or stolen passwords, screenshots and facial captures were necessary to prove who the true abusive user was and what they were doing. 3. Even when the computer was not connected to the school's network, a district use policy still applied. Let's say you give a child who does not own a computer at home a laptop. He then takes that laptop to a friend's house (for the internet connection) and uses it for non educational (district approved) purposes (plotting the demise of his classmates, looking up how to build a bomb, linking up on Facebook in order to plan on how to bully an acquaintance, accessing adult materials, learning how to gain access/make drugs). It's the district who provided the laptop, and who owns the laptop (assuming it's on loan, other situations may exist), and can still be construed as being responsible for the activities of the child on the laptop as it is with the computers housed in it's buildings (network use policy). Thus, abuse of district policy regarding the laptop outside of "operating hours" or the real estate of the district, would still have consequences for the user, whom can only be tracked with stored histories, screenshots, and facial captures. There are SO many possibilities that can occur when it comes to the triangle relationship of a school district, a computer (or any technology), and a student. These examples are only a narrow overview, but all are grounded in reality. If the district were stripped of the tools necessary (screenshots, histories, facial captures) to assert it's rights, implement mandated programs, protect itself from liability (even in private schools, in interest of cost), and protect the welfare of it's students, it would be unable to support any technology at all. I am NO WAY in favor of spying on people in their homes, that's an obvious overstepping of some gravely serious boundaries. How somebody uses a piece of district property (if it's on loan) in their home, and what they are doing in their home are two different things however. If a student or an individual requires absolute privacy in their use of a computer and the internet, they can take many measures to ensure their success. For an example: using their own privately owned computer, accessing a network with a strong concrete privacy policy (whether that's your home internet or elsewhere), using encryption technology to conceal communications, etc. I'll also note that it has been asserted (I previously said proved, but that doesn't fit) in several cases that free speech in American public schools is limited, whether we like it or not. I'm not here to argue about software rights, privacy rights, necessary measures, free speech, etc. I really don't participate in the board, but seeing as how I've had some experience in this regard and actually took an active Orwellian-esque hand in it, I thought I could contribute some valuable information and considerations into the conversation. Thanks guys, Asher
×
×
  • Create New...