Inspector

I agree with the main point of your article. But, as before, I am not comfortable with your attitude toward your exes. I just can't see it. But I don't know you personally nor do I know your context well enough to go farther than that.

Not unless you're a woman, apparently.

See, since it is really one of the major arguments, then it's important to understand it if you want to understand the Objectivist position on the issue. It's not a matter of reading some one person's mind - it's a matter of knowing what self-esteem is - what its source must necessarily be, and knowing what evasion must necessarily do to a person's mind. All of this is Objectivist epistemology, which Gary refuses to read or seriously consider. (the best source for this is OPAR) You mean the series of posts in which you didn't answer substantial portions of what I said (and don't ask what - I already said what in my subsequent replies in that thread)? Don't bother replying - that was a rhetorical question. No, you can't control where a thread is. What you can do is: 1) Recognize that since this is not the debate section, you ought not be trying to debate here. 2) Recognize that you should have realized this before you started to try and argue here and so you are in the wrong to have even posted what you have so far. 3) Cease and desist replying to this thread altogether. Now. 4) Bear in mind that I won't reply to you any more in this thread except to use the "report" button.

I'm pretty much in the same place at this point, although if anyone has any objections to the former from an Objectivist standpoint, I'd like to hear them. Well, while we're waiting for anyone to respond on the former point, I've no objection if the latter is discussed. That is an interesting question. Oh, and I do like that Texas law. That's encouraging, although the qualifier of being at night seems inessential. But anyhow - I think that with minor property the issue actually becomes a matter of having given sufficient warning. I mean, if you have a gun on someone who stole your pencil and are warning them to stop running away or you'll shoot, then I really see it as being on them if they're dumb enough not to stop. This is the bottom line - we're not assuming an elite marksman. I consider it a bit fallacious to assume that in a situation like that, with adrenaline pumping, that it's realistic to expect that you can aim so precisely unless you're very highly trained. Besides, no matter where you aim for it's still potentially lethal, and so the legal status is the same.

That's a good point. But assuming that the robber does not comply, the question is whether the man has the right to act on his threat and use potentially deadly force to stop the crime from being committed. Threats are useless without the rights to carry through with them.

I'll clarify a few points: My example is most certainly NOT intended to include a retributive use of force. The point of shooting the man in the back is not revenge for stealing, but to prevent the crime by stopping the criminal. I say deadly force because shooting a man is deadly force, no matter if you are aiming for the kneecap or whatever. It is considered deadly force, and rightly so. But the POINT of the use of force is not specifically to kill the robber, but to stop him. It's just that the only effective means of doing the one is to do the other. This is a very much non-controversial fact among self-defense experts that I know and I do not wish for this thread to argue this point. If you don't agree with it, then simply assume for the sake of argument that it is true. (by the way, this same thing applies to defending oneself against deadly force: your use of force, legally, is not specifically to kill the attacker, but to stop him. It's just that the law recognizes that the one may and often does do the other) Tactically speaking, for most men in that situation, it would be suicidal to attempt to stop a knife-armed robber by any other means. Also, while interesting, let's not assume that there is a crowd or any other complicating factors. The question is whether a man can act in self-defense to stop a criminal who is attempting to violate his rights when he is not under the immediate threat of bodily harm.

You have done no such thing - see my post which I linked to. Furthermore, you are in violation of the rules of this board by attempting to continue your debate in this non-debate section. I call for the moderators to delete your posts. To others: Notice that Gary will accept no understanding of Miss Rand's quotation other than the totally literal: a complete and physical destruction of the looter. The idea that it must necessarily turn him psychologically into a miserable freak that is incapable of existing as a man is meaningless to Gary, since he considers all that to be mumbo-jumbo and Objectivism's understanding of what makes a man to be subjective hearsay. Mostly because he refuses to read and understand Objectivism or to actually respond to the points I raised which defeat his claims.

I'd like to pose the following question to Objectivists and/or those knowledgeable in it: Suppose that a robber steals a man's wallet and wedding ring at knifepoint. After purloining the man's valuables, the robber turns and makes to escape with the stolen goods. From the standpoint of Objectivism, does the man have the right to use force to prevent the robber from getting away with his property? How about deadly force? Does the entire act of theft count as the initiation of force? I.e. does he have the right to pull a previously unnoticed gun and shoot the robber in the back to prevent him from escaping and thus completing his theft -- thereby preventing an initiation of force? Or is the emergency over when the robber turns and runs? I think that in our present society (or at least some localities) the law says that the emergency is over when the robber turns to run away. But I surmise that a man has the right to act in self-defense to prevent a crime, even if the robber has stopped immediately threatening others. Your thoughts?

David, do mrocktor the courtesy of not toying with him. This seems like the scenario he wants - I will spell it out more clearly so that you can answer him directly: Man A witnesses man B kill his child right in front of him. After the fact he is able to retrieve a gun. The murderer lays down on the ground and says "I surrender." Man A shoots the murderer and kills him. The law arrests him and discovers the situation, also ruling that the dead man was entirely guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and would have been sentenced to death. Are you saying the law should punish man A, and if so on the basis of what violation of rights?

AMirvish, I think you're confusing Immigration and Citizenship. There is a line in the article distinguishing the two.

The second point is granted, but I'm not sure of the first. In a discussion in which one party asks a question about Objectivism and another provides an answer, is that not - technically speaking - teaching something about Objectivism? Or is it just that "educate" can imply a more comprehensive transfer of knowledge than is possible here. If that's what you mean, then I agree - this is no place to learn the whole, or even the majority, of Objectivism. It's for smaller questions, applications, and so forth. Er... not really. To quote Morbo: Windmills do not work that way.

Yes, precisely - and on the nose! Sieur Bertrand, the title of your post by all appearances is a literary allusion to Ayn Rand. And if it is, it represents a mistaken interpretation of her views. Since the specific and stated purpose of these forums is to, as I said, educate and elucidate those views, then I was simply following the stated purpose of these forums by providing a correction to your error. It seems you've taken offense to it, but you should bear in mind where you are and what the purpose of this place is.

Actually, there is a rule that this is a forum whose purpose is to educate and elucidate Ayn Rand's works. You are of course free to disagree, but that is nevertheless the purpose of this place, so do bear that in mind. "Evolution." Yes, that word alone is enough for me to know what you're talking about. See, I can use sarcasm, too. All of which is besides the point. If you want to debate against Ayn Rand's views, then go to the debate forum. However, the rules say this is a place for learning and asking about said views, so it would be inappropriate here. I didn't. What I wanted to ask, I asked. As for implications, I said I intended no comment on your situation. In fact I said that three times now. Must I say it again?

A very complex question that one may not be able to answer in such a limited venue such as this. To try to put it simply: Because bad philosophy has lied to them and told them truth hurt. And because once you start evading the truth you start to create a "debt" of sorts which will be repaid once the truth finally catches up with you. If you follow truth in the first place and never try to run from it, then there is nothing to catch you and hurt you. Truth becomes your friend, rather than your enemy. Don't shirk from being challenged here. It will happen. But in the end you can benefit greatly from it.

Exactly what Jenni said. As I said, I'm not trying to comment on you so do please try to refrain from insulting me. I just want to make sure that you have a clear understanding of what Ayn Rand's view on hero worship was. After all, you are new here and the purpose of this place is to educate and elucidate Ayn Rand's works and philosophy.

I don't think you read my post closely enough, or perhaps you stopped reading at just that sentence. I did not say that short hair automatically makes a woman unfeminine. I said that, as a trait, in isolation, it was basically unfeminine. I also qualified that this was putting it quite simply - that there was really more to it. And finally I went on to describe how some women can make short hair "work" for them. Did you miss all that? First, bikers have ratty and unkempt hair, so it's not so much that it's long. They are going on the idea that they are unshaven, unkempt "rebels" who don't have to answer to "the man." Most of it came about in the Vietnam draft era, as a kind of badge to say that the Army couldn't make them cut their hair. In other words, it's a specific thing that was responding to other things in the culture. Absent those factors, it wouldn't exist. So you can hardly say that it serves to disprove the general rule. What kinds of musicians? For masculine ones, I can only think of the 1980's, and then it was sourced as a rebellion from earlier eras, which they glammed out. They were copying it from the bikers and hippies and such, but they completely lost the point when they primped it up as much as they did. Basically, they didn't really know what they were doing and most today admit it was a bit crazy.

What I mean is, masochism is the seeking of having pain inflicted on you. The pain isn't the point of what you're talking about - a vigorous sexual struggle.

All of this is terribly off topic. The article is about feminists using statistics to invent rapes where none actually exist. This is disgusting for many reasons, one of which is because it takes efforts off of preventing and prosecuting real rapes.

I don't think what you're describing can properly be called masochism, as such.

Not really; that would only make the situation worse. There's a mega-thread on this, which turns in a relevant direction right around here. I'm not saying anything about your own situation, which I don't know enough about to say anything and as far as I know you didn't ask me. I just mean to clarify what the books present - it's a common error to not realize that it is the women who are "hero worshippers."

Okay, I finally got around to upgrading to a PC that will run Bioshock. I thought it was pretty fun, if tragic. Now... makes me think you must have missed 75% of the audio logs in the game, or at least not bothered listening to and comprehending most of them. I can think of a few of his actions off the top of my head that would defy this characterization immediately: - - - - - - Yes and no. On the one hand, . But on the other, you're a little confused about those events. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I'm trying to break it to him as gently as possible... I don't want to dump on the new guy or anything. I mean if that's his bag then it's not the end of the world or anything... it's just he should know that's not where the books were going...

Interesting. That, and the comment about you being a hero-worshipper... Now "Derek" is, where I live, generally a man's name... are you a man? (read that literally - no offense intended!) Did you ever notice that the "masochism" and hero-worship were always being done by the women in the books? I've noticed a lot of people miss that.

This is the key. Long hair is quite feminine and short hair more practical and thus (to really simplify the matter) masculine. As for a woman with short hair, it is unfeminine. So how does it "work" for some women? Well, look at every such woman: notice that the ones it works for all have extremely obvious feminine facial and/or body features and/or dress a bit vampy. And also they mostly are or look very small, to give that "pixie" look, which is feminine in its own way. Basically it's a thing which has to be "pulled off," so to speak.

What, no disagreement here. It's an art form.