Castle

I would say its probably an online subculture. Objectivists are way to rare and argumentative in the real, except maybe in an large urban setting.

Honestly, the whole "Uh oh, we found out you're gay and you've got to be kicked out." has been used a lot more as a device for people to get themselves out of the military than as any sort of persecution. Not that innocent homosexual have never been removed from service, I've just seen the gay card thrown as an escape tactic a lot of times. The whole thing is just stupid. The only case I can remember reading about was a discharge a few years ago where a soldier got outed completely by accident. The common theme that I can remember was that everyone involved was pretty much rolling their eyes at the whole thing with the command reluctantly obeying regulations they obviously thought were dumb.

I think she was just that sure of herself and her convictions. Not to mention she has escaped Soviet Russia. Once someone has survived a situation like that I'm sure criticism in even a mixed society seems pretty mild.

Finally, someone willing to patronize a new Objectivist who asked for a little advice. I'm tired of seeing all this encouragement of reason and morality in the young when we should just be making them feel stupid and alienated.

The argument is arbitrary and completely circular. It can't be "solved" or refuted because the whole argument isn't based in anything except circular wording. All you could gain from debating this with a committed theist would be to piss them off, make them feel stupid, or motivate evasions as they wrestle with the contradiction.

I'm better at issuing this advice that following it, but get out. If there was some vestigial quality you value there and it seemed to be growing you might have cause for some cautious optimism, but that isn't really what you described. Just the fact that you're asking how long you can grin and bear it before madness overtakes you implies that you probably need to make a change. If your values just don't coincide with her values then that just is what it is. I know how you feel with not wanting to hurt people, but from my (hard won) experience the choice about hurt is made. You just get to decide when and how much if you're sure about the lack of prospects for the situation.

Ayn Rand wasn't exactly silent on the comparison between the Nazi and Soviet states, and the common ideologies behind them.

Sorry for the typo, was typing fast. Yes, I was referring to private prisons. The concept behind private prisons seems to be competing governments. I think its a bad idea for the same reasons that government competition is. It would get out of hand fast. Giving certain classes of criminal opportunities to work doesn't seem like a bad idea as long as its not compulsory. I would draw the line at private prisons or even any sort of contractual agreements between the government and potential employers beyond what would be needed to maintain security.

Of course, the Mexican gov't was quick to state that privatization is simply not an option. That might actually have a snowball's chance of working. They should outsource it to the cartels down there. They're really good at moving and distributing commodities with minimal loss.

I think a lot of the advances you name will be at least partially, but I think it will involve more than just modifying our DNA to make it work. 1. Better immune system: Almost inevitable, but I doubt it will be of the "prevent all disease" sort of advance. I have a feeling the bugs will adapt right along with us. Combined with other disciplines we might get pretty close though. It seems to me that the combination of enhanced immunity, nanotech, engineered organisms, and improved sanitation methods would be pretty potent though. Those advances would probably lend themselves to anti-cancer efforts too. If medical researchers develop methods to temporarily slow the body's metabolism that would probably be useful too. I'm pretty sure graft improvements will involve improving graft compatibility to us, not adapting us to the grafts. 2. Wound repair: Pretty much involves the technologies already mentioned. I'm sure some sort of mechanical analog to human parts will also be developed for replacements. The teeth thing would be neat, but If we developed tech that advanced I think we'd probably have a better method that direct implantation into the jaw. At that level of mastery it would probably just involve an injection of some sort of genetic catalyst into the gumline to motivate regrowth. 3. Less sleep: I really doubt it. Getting into some pretty advanced mucking with neurochemistry and brain function. However, combine longevity and productivity advances it might not even matter. 4. Longevity: Probably. My understanding is the aging process is largely one of progressive genetic damage and wearing down the body. I'm sure we'll be able to fix that at some point or just replace parts. 5. Better Brains: I don't think its likely with genetics for the reasons mentioned under less sleep. I can see all kinds of cybernetic and pharmacological assistance though. If just the functions of my iphone could be incorporated into a person it would be a pretty significant enhancement. It wouldn't even need to be smaller, we'd just have to solve the interface and rejection problem. 6. The good shape thing seems possible. Weight loss drugs are getting pretty good, along with additives like olestra that help reduce the bad component of some foods.

"I don't see how they can be defended rationally, if you take the principle of individual rights seriously." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument...timidation.html "Birth is what creates an individual being. Before birth a "being" doesn't exist." Yes, and if for some reason the female waits too long, removing a fetus that is then capable of surviving is essentially a birth. I'm not referring to the "it could have become a person" fallacy. There is a point where removing the fetus from the female would just be a premature birth. It seems a worthwhile thing to research. "Viability is a criterion that changes with the advancement of technology. " Am I to infer that you are saying advances in technology shouldn't have any sort of influence on ethics and morality? Just ignore any future data or technology? I also doubt that this has greatly changed. The embryo is just cells for quite a while, and for a while after that just a vaguely man shaped mass that would immediately expire upon removal. Thats nothing like a very late term fetus. Any Objectivist writing I could find refers to the cell or embryo phase of gestation, not say a ninth month pregnancy. "Taken together your two sentences, if enacted in law, would expose the mother to forced surgery." No principle I've presented for debate forces anyone to do anything, and I'm not entrenched in them, I'm discussing potential views. If a principle was validated that led to the determination that abortions up to a certain month are ethical, but not after or changed our understanding of which procedures are ethical it wouldn't be forcing anything on anyone. Determining that the procedure to achieve a certain result must be done a certain way at a certain time isn't "force" against someone who desires the procedure.

I honestly wouldn't know. I can see it being a problem, but even then it seems like that would be the sort of thing that would fade over time as the culture of the organization adapts. Of course, the difficulty of implementing something doesn't have any bearing on whether its correct or not. I also think it would require some significant changes to the organization, beyond what would be immediately obvious. My gut tells me it wouldn't be a detriment in the long term but it would probably be a difficult beginning.

Jake, I'm not sure what you're getting at. In post 27, post 28 was totally correct imho. I'm not seeing how the "motive is thought" thing changes the assertion Jack made. It certainly doesn't make it any more correct. It just compounds the error because motive is not equivalent to thought, it is a specific category of thought. It looks like there are 2 assertions there that must be separately refuted. It seems like we both agree that both of those assertions are incorrect. If your point is that it should have been included for completeness, I'll concede that.

I've been in the military for quite a while and this has never been a big deal. Thats not to say there have never been any problems, I've just never seen any hazing or any attempt to find, single out, and harass gay soldiers. I do remember one suspected incident of interpersonal violence, and it seemed a more likely that the perpetrator was batshit nuts than the crime was motivated by the rumors of the victims gayness. Any kind of gender, race, or orientation harassment is severely looked down on. You wouldn't believe how many anti-harassment classes soldiers are continually put through. I'm sure a large majority of military members would state that they aren't ok with gays in service, but I'm sure they would also state that they aren't interested in starting any inquisitions or getting upset about it. The anti-gay service stance makes sense just because most service members come from conservative or moderate roots that hold those views. The left doesn't respect or support the military regardless of what they say and most left to far left people would do anything before they would work for the military. At least thats been my perception. Edited to agree with Zip. The openly gay guy serving isn't getting blackmailed. Its going to be the guy hiding it to keep his job or especially the closeted guy living a secret life. The security risk of the first guy is totally eliminated, and the second is going to be a risk no matter what. I don't see any reason why a secret gay affair would be any more of a security risk than a secret hetero one anyway.

SD26, You can invent hypothetical "what ifs" all day long for any theory, especially if you are willing to quietly add elements and drop contexts. "So, an individual only has the intent of an "organization"? No, an individual in the uniform of an organization can be reasonably believed to be acting in the interests of the organization via established methods of the organization. "What if the individual is trying to protect themselves in getting out of said organization?" What if they hit their head and now they hear unicorns telling them to shoot gummy bears to prevent the apocalypse? What if they're buying it to bronze and give the gang member of the month on employee appreciation day? In a world where people aren't all-knowing reasonable actions must be based on all data available and the most likely interpretation, not endless "what if"s. When you see a horse, its reasonable to act as though its a horse, not ask yourself if its a stripeless zebra, hornless unicorn, or wingless pegasus. Perhaps the guy should contact the police. That seems more likely to be a successful tactic than preparing to shoot it out with the gang. Perhaps he should change his shirt so he isn't displaying to the world that he is in a violent organization. "What intent are you trying to produce for an individual in your example? I could "produce" the intent that the individual was the victim of a carjacking or abduction and is looking for protection? What is yours?" See my above response to half formed unlikely interpretations. You get into a car wreck and the guy gets out of his car visibly angry, walks into a store, and tells the clerk "I need to buy a gun." Do you stand there and wonder "I wonder if this chap has been carjacked or has been abducted?" I doubt it. My statement involved the purchaser, the seller, and a wreck. If your argument hinges on the car being full of carjackers or kidnappers please clearly state that you're adding significantly to my statement for ease of fabricating an easier argument to refute. CastleBravo, In asking why a criminal wouldn't want legally purchased guns assumes a lot. In the current regulatory climate, I agree that they wouldn't. In a less regulated climate where every citizen isn't assumed to be a potential criminal and tagged for purchase then legal purchase wouldn't matter at all to the rare criminal. Yes, I believe that you are flawed in your thinking regarding uniforms. Can we agree that gang colors are a uniform in areas where gangs are heavily active? It isn't a matter of knowing what a person is thinking. A uniform is a clear declaration that the wearer is affiliating themselves with a group's actions, values, and methods. If an guy in an Iranian army uniform tries to buy materials useful to missile production the appropriate action for the seller isn't "Well, I can't possibly know what this Iranian army guy is thinking or what his motives are. I better just sell him these missile parts because I don't want to unjustly infer that he supports the goals of the organization he's affiliated with.". I'm not talking about inferring what anyone is thinking generally based on any style of dress, this is within the specific context of wearing a known uniform. If dress signifying affiliation is totally irrelevant a police officer arresting a gang member with a warrant has no reason at all not walk confidently into a crowd of people wearing gang colors and arrest the guy alone, even turning his back on them. After all, all he knows is that they are affiliated with a criminal organization based on wearing the uniform. He has no idea what to expect from any of the individuals he currently sees, right? He should turn his back on the arrested criminals gang as though they were a troop of boy scouts. Those would be very unreasonable actions for the officer to take because you can infer information from uniforms.

Couldn't edit a typo that is important. "I'd like to restate that my opinion there is not the standard Objectivist argument, as far as I know." Should be. I'd like to restate that the above opinion is not the standard Objectivist argument, as far as I know.

My opinion diverges a little from the standard party line, but I think my thinking is sound. I would say that the line is drawn when the neurological structures are fully formed and capable. To my knowledge this has not been accurately determined, I would assume very late in gestation. Using only birth as a criteria seems off base if the exact same being is there before. Another possible criteria that seems relevant is viability of the fetus outside the womb. If the abortion is essentially inducing birth and then killing the newborn or allowing it to die, there seems to be a moral issue there. I'd like to restate that my opinion there is not the standard Objectivist argument, as far as I know. I'll try to find the quote, but I do remember hearing Peikoff illustrating abuses in China by pointing out that compulsory late stage abortions are common there. Obviously the complusory part is totally immoral, but the inclusion of the stage of gestation indicated to me that it was a relevant factor.

I'm not going to take over for him, because I think he's wrong. As I stated, I believe the principle you are arguing is the correct one. It is your argument that doesn't work. It doesn't because Jack's incorrect statement specified a context. If you are going to refute the statement, it must be within the given context otherwise you aren't attacking it at all. His context was the purchase of a firearm. Making an example that illustrates that you certainly can know the intent of a person who is aiming a gun at you does nothing to refute the claim that you can't know his intent when he buys it. For the purpose of argument it doesn't matter that you're right and he's wrong, you have to prove it and you aren't proving it by that example. I'll caps this because you are posting responses that look like you think I'm arguing Jack's point, its intended to draw attention, not as "shouting". YOUR POINT IS CORRECT. Here was Jack's statement. "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." Here I am refuting it. When a gun purchaser is wearing the uniform of a known criminal or murderous organization, you can reasonably determine intent. An example would be gang colors. Certain events witnessed prior to the attempted purchase indicate questionable intent. An example would be witnessing a car wreck and immediately after a driver walks up to you and asks to buy a gun. You can reasonably infer intent depending on emotional cues given off by the purchasers. I am retaining Jack's given context, a gun purchase, and giving examples to illustrate that often there is a way to know the motive of a person when they buy a gun. "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." does not equate to "There is know way to know a person's motives with a gun." You refuted the second statement, not Jack's.

I think the premise that one's "only option" can be narrowed down to prostitution is pretty silly. Screwing people is not a human's basic tool for survival, their mind is. The last option available to any human is to think things through and rearrange their environment to meet their needs. If a person was suddenly stranded on a desert island, he wouldn't suddenly think "My God, I've got to find someone to give me goods for sex!" Responding to Allo, My point wasn't that the buyer and seller of sex hold depravity as a mutual value. They do both hold the view that a human being is a means to an end, and have a low and distorted valuation of sex and others. Their copulation is an expression of those values, whether they know it in explicit terms or not. I'm at work, so I can't look it up at the moment, but If memory serves James and Jillian's affair was based on mutual hatred of the good and the specific shared belief that it would insult or hurt others. Sounds like an expression of mutual values to me.

I agree that you really need to know how they are defining selflessness, and the context. A lot of organizations use "selfless" when they really mean being a team player or engaging in work that benefits people. Any actual requirements for action made of you would be important as well. Equally important, to me, would be the organization's attitude toward discussion and possible dissent. Would you be allowed to live your principles without being railroaded?

You have my sympathy. I'm down in Anderson county, right on the border so this hits close to home. Things like this are why I generally communicate with bureaucrats, administrators, and especially public officials via email whenever possible. I also keep recording app on my iphone, I use it for taking notes in class and such, but you never know when you might need to have a record of incriminating or insane conversation. Knowing this, If I were organizing any sort of protest down in Greenville I would probably seed the crown liberally with video cameras and have the protesters wear t-shirts that said "We are recording you.". I can't believe in the age of camera phones no one got a video of the exchange.

Jake, I don't know what logic you are using, but purchase of an potentially dangerous item and aiming a potentially dangerous item at someone's head are not equivalent actions. Simple purchase was the context given. You dropped the context and then substituted a drastically different action. Within the context of a simple gun purchase, all other things being equal, you can't know the purchasers intent without a direct statement of some sort. Within the completely different context of an office, performing a completely different action with the purchased item is a clear statement of intent in and of itself. Switching to a different context and action, while only retaining a single element (a gun is involved) to refute a statement is the definition of a straw man. "While the right to self defense is inalienable, and my motives for saying that and living by it are irrelevant as far as the truth of that statement (in bold) is concerned, granting someone a gun permit, thus allowing them to buy a gun, should not be done if there is a reasonable expectation, based on facts, that he intends to use it in a crime. (as opposed to for self defense) Those facts can be a previous criminal record, membership in a gang, intentions stated explicitly, etc." I agree. Actually, It looks like we agree on most of this except for the validity of that first argument. "The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy too." I agree. I probably phrased that poorly. My intended point was to show that CastleBravo's friend was arguing that one needs omniscience for principled action and how flawed that reasoning is. The Rand quote doesn't really surprise me, this is a tough issue.

I would not concede that there is no way to determine a man's motives, within a certain context. Some contexts and actions directly imply certain motives to a reasonable observer. For example, pointing a gun at someone's head implies to a reasonable person that they intend to endanger their life, and possibly kill them. It is reasonable to take someone's statements regarding their own intentions at face value unless there is reason to believe otherwise. I would agree that it is unethical for a civil authority to require a declaration of intent (or anything else) before allowing someone their own rights. With the exception of that it is reasonable, in my opinion, to consider it a crime for a retailer to sell an item to someone who is specifically stating his intent to commit a crime with the item.

Nah, don't shut your mouth, not if you find value in the process. Again, I'm a total layman, but it does look to me from reading the link you provided that you have likely mislabeled the argument as the motive fallacy. However, I think your actual assertion is correct. Your position seemed to be implying that it is appropriate and effective to deny felons firearms based on actual objective criteria. I personally don't agree with the scope of your assertion, but the principle of denying a person the ownership of a gun only after they've objectively demonstrated by their actions that they are dangerous is sound in my opinion. I would personally modify the position to restrict the ban to violent felons, not felons in general, and I would include a period to the ban with objective criteria for demonstrating to the judiciary that the felon can be reasonably expected to utilize firearms appropriately. Your friend is restating your argument with critical terms omitted and inverted, then attacking that. "It is appropriate to restrict ownership of firearms among criminals, who have previously acted to violate rights." is not "We must know everyone's intent before selling them firearms." The second seems to be the argument your friend is manufacturing and then attacking.

Although I think Jack is a little off base with the apparent assertion that one can't determine a person's intentions from their own stated intentions, setting up a straw man isn't doing anything to prove it. A suspicious or threatening verbal statement is not the same thing as a direct physical threat.