Myself

The problem with Charlie Rose is that he has no idea how to have a hard hitting interview. He's too laid back and too accommodating of his guests. That's probably why Ahmadinejad agreed to talk with him in the first place.

Well, we have many male posters here denying the OP's characterization of male fantasies, but I'm going to take the opposite tack and confirm them, at least partially. When I fantasize sexually (during masturbation or otherwise) it's strictly an esthetic, physical focus. I don't fantasize about personalities and I don't fantasize about imagined scenarios or act out scenes in my head. My fantasy is strictly about the sexual act itself, because to me, every other aspect that other posters fantasize about I take as a given. I'll explain. For me, the idea of having sex with somone I didn't find arousing -- in intellect and personality -- is totally repugnant to me. Therefore when I fantasize about sex I take it for granted that the woman I'm imagining or the picture or video I'm projecting on is my ideal mate. With that psychological need fulfilled I can focus purely on the physical act and experience pleasure without the distraction of conjuring personality. The fact is that every person can be so uniquely different and attractive in such a startlingly large number of individual ways, that I would find it very limiting to fantasize about the same personality over and over and again and intellectually draining to keep trying to invent new ones. It's also dangerous in my opinion to become too attached to an imagined personality because it may interfere with meeting and appreciating real women. So as far as I'm concerned, give me a beautiful, voluptuous body and a face to match and when it comes to sexual fantasies I have all I could ever want or need.

Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Social mores today are tremendously more inclusive and less homogenous BECAUSE of the free flow of information, not because everything is kept hidden away. As for peeping through windows -- it's up to you to make sure the blinds are closed if you value your privacy. There is no right to privacy, per se -- only the right to property, which is your own responsibility to safeguard. From what I can see, blackmail is just another way to maximize or monetize information. It's sort of like insider-trading -- it has a bad rap, but when you think about it there's nothing necessarily nefarious about it at all. Information should have a price if you're willing to pay for it -- everything else does.

Absolutely not. Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. The sole purpose of government is the abrogation of the use of force. The only thing a government can properly make illegal is the violation of indivdual rights which requires initiation of the use of force against another. Blackmail (as has been discussed) does not fit this criteria.

In order for something to be intellectual property it has to be either a copyright, patent, or trade secret. Which of those would you propose your philosophical convictions, sexual orientation, or marital infidelities fall under? And yes, I assume in a world where blackmail was generally legal there would be professional blackmailers as a sort of a subprofession of private investigators. Not that those don't exist today, it's that they're not that open about it. You may not like this idea, but I'm sure the marketplace would work itself out when put in the proper context of a functional judicial system and rights-respecting constitution.

Hmm, I'm not a lawyer and this is getting confusing. For instance, according to this federal statute: (bold mine). http://law.jrank.org/pages/568/Blackmail-E...l-statutes.html So I guess this means it's against the law to blackmail someone out of state, but depending on state laws it may be permissable in-state? What if you're both in states that allow blackmail? Would that still be violating the federal statute? By the way, I'm having trouble finding where you can look up these sort of laws by state. What did you do to look up the laws you cited in Ohio and Kansas?

*** Mod's note: Split/Merged from another topic. - sN *** She defined a value as "an entity one acts to gain or keep." Edit: feel free to create a new thread about values if you want, but try to stick to the topic of blackmail in this one.

What's interesting about this is that the flip side of blackmail -- bribery -- IS legal as long as it isn't used to try to influence a public official (correct me if I'm wrong about this btw). That means that a cheating husband can approach someone he knows has knowledge of his infidelities and offer him money for his silence, but the person being offered money can't negotiate about the amount because then that would be falling into blackmail! So, really, I don't know whether your "dirty money" hypothesis is correct or not, but the law is really screwed up here.

So, I guess blackmail law is just another broken part of our legal system? What exactly is the legal justification that is used for its classification as a crime? Could someone challenge it in court?

That's an interesting take on it. Still is there any real reason why blackmail couldn't be made into a formal contract? It could be drawn up by attorneys bound by confidentiality agreements with copies of the contract given to only the two parties involved.

They are two completely different things. Blackmail is threatening to reveal sensitive information unless the person in question accedes to your demands. Extortion is threatening to intiate force on someone or violate his rights in some tangible fashion unless the person in question accedes to your demands. It's the difference between threatening to tell a cheating husband's wife about his infidelities unless he pays up and threatening to kill his wife or break his kneecaps unless he pays up.

Threaten his family with what? Don't confuse blackmail with extortion.

You're confusing blackmail with extortion. Edit: nevermind, I see you mentioned the kittens were strays. Since animals have no rights it should be legal to do what you proposed, but I would certainly say it's immoral. In any case it still doesn't answer the larger point about whether blackmail should be illegal, which must be tied to a violation of rights.

What do you mean? The person being blackmailed always has the choice of turning down the blackmailer's demands and letting the information become public. Explain how being blackmailed removes your ability to make choices.

Blackmail isn't always a negative act. It depends largely on who you're blackmailing, what you're blackmailing him with, and what you're demanding. Nevertheless, the morality of blackmail is not the issue here -- its legality is. I see no justification for it being illegal. Do you?

Blackmail, on the surface, seems to have no rational justification for its classification as a crime. Blackmail is essentially a voluntary exchange of something (whatever the blackmailer is demanding) in return for witholding information or keeping silent on a sensitive subject. No initiation of force is involved so there's no violation of rights. Why is it considered a crime and should it be?

This is, without a doubt, the funniest bit of journalism I've read in a long time. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/0...0-word-res.html

One of the most fascinating aspects of Ayn Rand's writing was her belief in the power of physiognomy, "the art of judging human character from facial features." This belief lies at the core of every one of her major works of fiction, and informs another cornerstone of her fiction, her belief in "love at first sight." While her belief in physiognomy is evident in all of her novels it is explicitly mentioned in one -- The Fountainhead. In the novel the protagonist, Howard Roark, and the antagonist, Ellsworth Toohey both have a unique and penetrating insight into mens' characters (or souls). In Roark this knowledge is mostly on the subconscious or intuitive level. Roark is an excellent judge of character and personality, his faculty of which is so acute that he regularly gives other characters in his presence the feeling of having their innermost being x-rayed or peered in to. This ability allows him to quickly identify potential friends or enemies within a few seconds of meeting them. Because this faculty is on a subconscious level, he has trouble explaining how he finds "his kind of people." When Austin Heller asks him, he replies: Unlike Roark, Toohey's insight into mens' characters is not a matter of intuition or subconscious premises. He understands on a conscious level that the psychological and philosophical premises of a man's character can be read from his face. This uncanny ability is made known to the reader when Toohey sees Roark for the first time. The scene is set in a large crowded room. Something about Roark stops him in his tracks: Toohey could see the force of Roark's personality impressed into every aspect of his appearance. Without exchanging a single word with him, without knowing a single fact about him, without knowing anything but what was in front of his eyes he immediately seized Roark up as the type of person he was. Later, he explains this ability to the hostess of the party, Kiki Holcombe: While this is the most explicit she is in describing her belief in the importance of physiognomy, other examples of this premise can be found in Dominique's initial meeting with Roark at the quarry, Kira's first meeting with Leo in We the Living, Equality 7-2521 meeting Liberty 5-3000 in Anthem, and Francisco, Ragnar, and Galt "picking each other out by sight" in college. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list. So, what does this all mean? What does it mean to be able to identify a man's character based on his face? The easy assumption to make is that this equates to a belief in determinism, that a man's future actions are set out for him at birth. The truth is much more complex. The answer lies in first determining what a man's character consists of. Again, the easy answer to say is that a man's character is the sum of the choices he makes in life, which when analyzed can be abstracted into a set of beliefs that person holds, which can then be used to predict his future actions. This is perfectly reasonable. However this answer leaves out a key component: personality. What is personality? Broadly, you could say a person's personality is the most fundamental aspect of individuation. Even in infants you can observe personality traits emerging, such as stubborness, extroversion, introversion, degrees of intelligence, inquisitiveness, and levels of irritibility. An individual's personality is complex and continues to develop as the child matures and his brain continues to grow. Eventually, a person's personality reaches its final stages of maturation and you can observe and interact with a fully developed human being. So, how does personality affect character? If we go back to the earlier definition of character as "the abstraction of the sum of expressed action" then we need to look at how people make choices. How do people arrive at the choices they make? The possibilities seem to predicate on whim, emotion, or reason. I should note that these are broad categories which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The first of these categories, the whim, is too inclusive a cause to be easily deconstructed. A whim is defined as an "arbitrary thought or impulse" which could be caused by the willful abdication of thought (a loss of mental control) or it could be based on an emotion, or a rational thought. Whatever the origin of the whim, when it is indulged, it is characterized by a lack of overall rational deliberation. It's execution is swift or immediate. The second of these categories is emotion. Ayn Rand believed that emotions are automatic responses formed by subconsciously held metaphysical premises. These premises can be set by consciously held ideas programming the subconscious or by a process of automatic accumulation of experientailly drawn conclusions, or by unquestioningly assimilating outside ideas. The third of these categories is reason. A full discussion of how a person uses reason in a decision making process would be too involved for the present discussion. Rand writes that "the method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." What is important to note is that the key faculty in properly employing reason in the use of logic is intelligence. Now consider how a person's personality can affect the above three ways of arriving at choices. Because personality is so complex it's difficult to construct a model to use. Although not representative, for the sake of demonstration I'll define a very simple personality. Let's say a person of average intelligence has personality traits that include a high level of aggression, a weak level of curiosity, and a high degree of stubborness. A person with an average intellect who is not especially curious may not like reading too much. Instead, because of high levels of aggression that person may enjoy physical activity as a means of releasing it. Because of his stubborness, he has a disinclination to examine the validity of his choices, and may not learn easily from mistakes. That sort of personality would naturally gravitate toward decisions based on emotion and whim because they complement his general disposition -- it is the path of least resistance. That doesn't mean that this person is incapable of rational choice, but it does mean that this person will have a harder time choosing a rational choice when confronted with other options, under certain contexts. So how does this all fit into the theory of physiognomy? The idea is that because personality and intelligence are genetically based, it may mean that these characteristics could be expressed in the genetic structure of a human face. As a science, Physiognomy would attempt to understand the genetic basis of such a connection and would attempt to discover the means to reliably interpret features into corresponding personality traits. Unfortunately, Physiognomy as a science is still at it's very early stages. There have been historical attempts to develop physiognomy, but none of them have been scientifically rigorous. What you may be wondering is if physiognomy as a field of study is still in its infancy whether one can draw any conclusions about whether it is valid or not. I would argue that you can. The means of doing so are your own life experiences. From my own experience I can tell you that one of the easiest things you can read on a person's face is intelligence or lack of intelligence. I can spot aggressiveness, stubborness, extroversion, introversion, and a whole host of other personality traits. All I have to do is study a person's face for a few seconds and I can create a pretty accurate profile of his or her personality. I test this by then interacting with the person. I'm not always right, but I'm right enough of the time to know that it isn't chance. Here's one ubiquitous example of physiognomy that just about everyone knows how to do: spot a bitch. Both men and women can spot a bitchy personality from a quick glance at a face. It's not the style of makeup or how she grooms her face that tips people off, because those aren't always factors. It's the face. Something about the face that clues people in. I also have a theory about how this works. I think that people who are attentive and sociable meet people with similar personality types thoughout the course of their life. If physiognomy holds true, then that person begins to automatically and subconsciously associate certain personality traits with certain features. Then, when that person meets a new person he automatically draws on past experiences to interpret commonly held features linked to memories of certain personalities and either likes or dislikes this new person's face based on subconsciously held information. Any thoughts? Edit: Just realized I finally got to 500 posts!

What? I have no idea who Della Porta is and physiognomy is most emphatically not witchcraft. As I mentioned, I'm in the middle of writing a post to start a new thread on the topic, which should be along sometime tonight. Suffice to say for now that physiognomy is the one common variable in all of Rand's writing that has never been explored in any depth up to this point. Not only is it present in her writing, but it's clear that she wholeheartedly believed in it as well. Physiognomy is an extremely complex and fascinating subject that should make for an interesting discussion. Stay tuned. Edit: I looked up Della Porta and I see he did write a text on physiognomy. I haven't read it so I can't evaluate any merits it may or may not have. I will say that physiognomy as a proper science has barely begun and research on the subject right now is scarce. It is, however, a legitimate field of inquiry as I'll explain in detail in my thread.

It's not determinism, it's physiognomy. Physiognomy is a very complex subject, one that Rand infuses throughout all of her fiction, and is remarkably, something that nobody picks up on. I think it deserves its own discussion, so if you'll wait a few hours, I'm going to start a seperate thread where we can discuss it further. I have to dig up my notes on the subject and organize my thoughts first, but you should see it up later tonight.

On the contrary. Rand believed (as do I) that a man's appearance (the way he presents himself, his bearing, as well as his face) has everything to do with his character and subsequently, his philosophy. All you need to do is look at Michael Moore and you know exactly what sort of person he is. His grotesque, corpulent physique, slovenly hygiene, squashed, bulbous face, and beady eyes are a direct reflection of his soul.

Objectivism holds that your life should be your standard of value, not necessarily your highest value. For instance: *A man may value fighting and dying for his freedom rather than live as a slave. *A man might choose to end his life if he is in terrible, constant pain and derives no pleasure from living. *A man might die defending his wife and children from thugs rather than live to bury them. In the above examples freedom, quality of life, and family are higher values than living. They are higher because the person in question has decided that life would be unbearable without those particular values and it would be meaningless for him to continue on without them.

"We the Living" is finally available on DVD! It includes, along with the edited film, 45 minutes of deleted scenes, including the original ending, and a "making of." http://www.wethelivingmovie.com/

I went over to your myspace page and listened to your compositions a few times, enjoying aspects of nearly every one. I do have some specific feedback for you (although it will be crude, because I am not a musician or composer) but I am curious to know what your background is first. How many years have you been writing music? Are you formally trained (at a university, conservatory, etc.)? How old are you? Incidentally, welcome to the forum.

Remember what Rand said about "conditioning the ear?"