Inspector

As I said, I was not making a scientific statement - I was just meeting him on his own terms: i.e. seeking to provide the explanation that is most consistent with the facts we do know. What makes me think that sexuality is directly related to one's consciousness? Because heartbeats, sneezing, et all are simple, physical reactions that don't involve thought at all. Whereas sexuality is enormously complex and is very much so a part of conscious thought. And furthermore there are many proven examples of people out there who have drastically changed their sexuality as a result of their changing thoughts. Not much in terms of deliberately and specifically changing something like homosexuality, but the point remains. Besides, does your experience tell you otherwise? Sure, you may not have changed anything as drastic as your sexual orientation with conscious evaluation and examination, but haven't you changed plenty of your less complex emotional reactions? Knowing that these, less complex, reactions are an (eventual) product of one's conscious convictions, doesn't that mean that the simplest explanation for more deep-seated emotions is that they come from the same process?

Everything. Everything down to the smallest detail of DNA, hormone balance, brain structure, and every other biochemical detail that current science has yet to understand. And by the way: NO, hormone therapy isn't even remotely close to replicating the actual body chemistry of a male in a female or vice versa. But in any case it doesn't really matter, does it? As I said, I'm not condemning anyone who evaluates that they'd be happier with a transformation, even given current technology. It's up to each individual to decide if their psychological problem is so unsolvable as to mean that they would be happier as a mutilated half-gender. As I said, it's just unfortunate.

Hmm, I will comment on your blog since our thread starter doesn't want that kind of discussion here.

I'd say that likely they didn't. They are animals who - unlike man - function on instinct and not learning. But it doesn't matter if they learned it or not. Because they are animals and not humans, so what they do means absolutely zilch to knowing what it is we humans do. You mean the "most rational" explanation is the one which places man as a being of instinct despite the fact that we know that he has no such thing? Despite the fact that we know he is born tabula rasa? No, that would not seem to be the "most rational reasoning" given that it is 180 degrees from everything else we know about how human consciousness goes. (which is not itself a scientific statement - I'm just meeting you on your own terms. Because even on your own terms, you're incorrect) Listen, I'm not going to get into this with you here. If you are missing so much that you can't see how that isn't man's nature, then I don't care to go through the long and arduous process of explaining that to you. So let's just agree to disagree.

Right; as I said, some of the really nutty people are genuinely afraid, but the label is overused. Well, if you want that question answered, I would say: in those other activities, it isn't one's member that is inserted into the feces. But it's about more than the dirtiness of the thing, obviously, since plenty of heterosexuals engage in that kind of intercourse. Well, as I said, I think it's an error in their application of masculinity to the issue. Oh, well, yes I can see that. But that is not what one is usually understood to mean when using the word "religious" so naturally I misunderstood you. It usually means "following the religious doctrine of a religion," which is not something that I see most people doing on this issue. (Luckily! Those people freak me out) But if that's not what you meant, then yes I agree it's kind of an unquestioned cultural tradition thing, where the culture says that x is an affront to masculinity. Why? Most can't say. I mean as I said there is a grain of truth in that it certainly isn't fully compatible with masculinity - and is contrary to what a masculine man thinks regarding his sexual role and domination/submission. But that being said I don't think that the gays are saying that what they do has any bearing on what normal men are or ought to be. So there's no reason for the masculine folks (such as myself) to think that this is in any way a challenge to them. But like I said, masculinity is a floating abstraction to most people, and furthermore a besieged concept in this post-feminist culture. So few people actually take the trouble to have a reasoned position on the matter. I do think that it mostly stems from that error, which has nothing to do with religion, unmoored or not. Either they're making that error, or they simply don't understand their own masculinity in reasoned terms, so anything that makes them think about it simply makes them uncomfortable. Which, again, isn't religious in any sense. But yes, whether people are acting out of religious motivation or not, to people running on inertia it certainly doesn't hurt that the church is saying it's a sin or whatever. But that's more of a "majority rules" thing.

I disagree that we are anywhere near that point, unless by "near" you mean 100+ years. But then again my standard for completeness in this regard is obviously much higher than yours. I believe I have answered that - "Now, even given this, a transgender individual may be happier living as one of those [mutilated half-genders] than as a fully functioning member of a gender that they cannot feel. So everything that applies to homosexuality applies in this case as well. It's just more unfortunate for them." The problem with both issues is that their psychology isn't matching up with the reality of their physical makeup. In both cases, if there is no way to treat the psychology to make it comply with reality then it is not immoral to act within that psychology. It's just that with transgender people, it involves complicated and expensive surgery which still won't fully solve their problem - so it's just more tragic.

Yes, spare parts will, unless the laws change. And 2010 won't be a cut-off date per se. It has more to do with product lifecycles, which are planned for years in advance by manufacturers and which expire when parts/labor contracts are up, even if painful laws are enacted. The Camaro, for instance, will likely run for at least 3-4 years from when production starts, and production is slated to start February 2009 (as a 2010 model), so I would expect it to run to, at the very least, 2012 (as a 2013 model). Barring unexpected developments, of course. Bear in mind that usually these things are killed when a company has financial difficulties and must make a decision of whether to develop a new model. (I.e. most cars carry over as nearly the same from year-to-year with an entirely redesigned model coming out every 3-6 years) Like for example Chrysler's recent financial woes and the recently announced killing of the Viper. It's entirely possible, although from what I've seen you should expect Mustang sticker prices to go up soon - and for the Camaro debut price to be higher also (like the Challenger already is). This will mean that used modern musclecars will also see their value hold or go up more than they would have otherwise.

That's certainly true, and while as I said I haven't observed any specific examples of what you're surmising, I suppose I wouldn't put it past the lefties to think that way.

Actually, the state of California has this exact problem every few summers or so. The times without electricity are called "rolling blackouts" here. I'd take the "FU" approach, myself. Especially since they need to be sent the message that they MUST start producing more electricity and the problem CANNOT be solved with "conservation" in anything but a short-term emergency. The idea that "conservation" can be used long-term to "solve" supply problems is rooted in viciously false economic and philosophical premises. So I would use as much as I need and be proud of it.

No, I think you are highly misinformed about the completeness of the medical procedures which exist currently. There exists no procedure by which a woman may become a fully functional male nor a man a fully functional female. All procedures currently in existence only change superficial appearances. Even the hormone therapies are crude at best compared to actually being a man or a woman. I suggest reading up on the subject, if you're interested. The fact is that one cannot, right now, become anything more than a mutilated approximation of the opposite gender. Now, even given this, a transgender individual may be happier living as one of those than as a fully functioning member of a gender that they cannot feel. So everything that applies to homosexuality applies in this case as well. It's just more unfortunate for them.

You need to focus on the term, "psychologically immoral" and ask yourself what that term might mean, and how it may differ from the term "immoral." Just like Flibbert explicitly did in his videos. Well, if you agree that it is an amalgamation of one's biological makeup in addition to the development of one's consciousness, then we have two questions. That of biological nature, and that of how the consciousness develops. Now you asked me how homosexuals deny the reality of their sexual identity. I think that in the case of the biological aspect, it is quite clear and uncontroversial. So I'm going to assume you're asking about the latter aspect - that of the development of consciousness. Which, as agreed by both Dr. Peikoff's lecture and Ayn Rand's statements - represent errors, flaws, and unfortunate premises. Masculinity, in Ayn Rand's view, was an essential recognition and development of the fact of one's maleness. So, while your statement of "Just because one is born with a penis, does not mean that it is immoral or even psychologically bizarre for him to insert it in places other than a woman's vagina" is crude and oversimplified to the point where it makes it nearly impossible to understand the issue, it yet retains a grain of truth. Yes, the fact that one is a male is a fact of reality by which one would rationally derive certain conclusions about what exactly one ought to want to do with one's genitalia. Which is not to say, that if one made errors in constructing one's psychology which one is now saddled with and cannot change, that it makes one immoral simply for having those emotions, or even acting on them given the fact that that may be the only available option for happiness. So the statement "Homosexuality qua homosexuality is not immoral" may not be true as such. Homosexuals are not necessarily immoral; which is not to say that "homosexuality qua homosexuality" is not. Yes, I know: it's quite a concept to absorb.

Precisely correct, Kendall.

Sounds like a question for me. The bill will indeed require corporate average fuel economy to increase to 35 MPG by 2011. What this means is that the average fuel economy for new cars must be 35. They can make some cars with less than that, but must also make some cars with more than that or face penalties. This bill applies to new cars and won't outlaw any existing car on the road. It will mean that manufacturers are going to put the kibosh on a lot of their upcoming cars that might have gotten less than 35 MPG. For instance, GM has already killed the rear-wheel-drive Impala that they had planned, and has changed their Camaro from a mass-market Mustang competitor to a more-expensive, more-limited-market car like the Dodge Challenger. (which is in the $40k range!) Basically, what this bill means for muscle cars is that there will be less of them and they will be more expensive. As for what this means to you: if you're willing to buy used, then likely you will have to pay a few dollars more, as muscle cars will likely go up in value due to the lack of newer versions. If you insist on buying new, then again be prepared to pay more for a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger. Because of product cycles, all three of those will still be available, even into 2011. But beyond that is anyone's guess. What I can tell you is that you will likely get plenty of warning - even when they killed the Camaro and Firebird back in '02, you could still find new ones on dealer lots well into 2003. It's just that, without a market for reasonably priced, fast cars, there won't be a future development of muscle cars for a number of years while technology catches up. Basically like the 70's and 80's all over again. Which, if you're a fan of these cars, is Not Good.

Yes and no. Yes, in the same sense that denying one's angry personality or one's timid personality would be a denial of self. Of course, all three psychological traits can and should be evaluated along the lines of: is it rational? Ought my self be this way? Should I seek to change this aspect of myself? Yes, and therein lies the rub. There isn't any sort of psychological technology available to change homosexuality. So regardless of one's evaluation of the rationality of the thing, there aren't so many options available to do anything about it. So the best option available may just be to shrug at the irrationality of the thing and make the most of the situation. Plenty of things which are clearly learned behavior in humans exist automatically in animals. Saying that something exists in the animal kingdom proves exactly nothing about its status in humans as learned or inherited because humans are not the same as animals.

I'm not sure what you mean - what I said was that logically whatever view - positive, negative, or neutral - one has toward the one, would have to apply to the other. If you think that homosexuality is a defiance of one's male or female identity, then how is transgenderism not the same? And if you see Homosexuality as a psychological flaw that one may have to live with on its own terms, then the same would apply to transgenderism. Perhaps it would help if you knew what my personal position was on the subject of homosexuality? For the record, I agree with Dr. Peikoff's views on this subject. And I think Flibby's summary is pretty much spot on. Because there does not exist such an ability. You cannot change your sex, despite all superficial attempts to the contrary. So both homosexuals and transgenders are practicing the same defiance of the reality of their physical sexual identity. But if you read what I linked to, I also think that this may be the best option that they have. -------------------------------- Adding to my reply to JJM, take for example that most masculine men who get angry at gay men have no such objection to a pair of feminine, lesbian, women. Quite the opposite, in fact. But if it were rooted in religion, then wouldn't they be just as disgusted by that? -------------------------------- Wait, what? I don't believe he went on record as "disagreeing with" Rand's statement. Perhaps you should follow the link I gave to Flibbertigibbet where he actually puts Rand's statement in full context before you conclude what she was in fact saying about homosexuality. Because it's pretty easy to misinterpret.

No; not outside of things making fun of it. Hate and fear are two separate emotions. As I said, yes, there are some people who are actually afraid but they are the completely insane ones who - like you said - are afraid they will catch "the gay." The term "homophobia," however, is used to describe anyone who has any objection to or distaste for, the practice whatsoever. This is my objection. That hasn't stopped at least some people I've seen from arguing that it is a Christian holdover as well, in arguments about statutory rape laws. The temptation, it seems, is to attribute anything one does not like that involves restraint on a sexual practice, as Christian. And, as a corollary, to also make the same accusation of anyone advocating such a position. But lots people play it fast and loose with this practice, without fully thinking the matter through. So I make it a point to call into question any such accusation. Christianity might be a major influence on our culture, but it is not the be-all-end-all boogeyman such that you can just blindly accuse it whenever you "smell" something "repressive." (Not you, JJM; I'm speaking generally here) So you're saying that when you say "Christian," that you mean Roman rather than Biblical? Could you elaborate? Sure, but per my post I am not talking about the highly religious here. I'm talking about the majority of men I've met who consider homosexuality offensive and who have explicitly given a masculine, non-religious explanation to me as to what bothers them. Are you telling me that they're all repressed Christians even though they don't even know it? That's an awfully Freudian claim, and frankly Freud was full of crap. Sure, that much is apparent. But as I said, the objections I refer to are those of an explicitly non-religious nature. The explanation that they really are religious without even knowing it is unsatisfying to me.

I've heard about such things from all over the place. (Yahoo news, google news, etc) Shale oil is one, but more recently I've heard of horizontal drilling, oil sands, and lots of conventionally accessible reserves off of various coasts which are simply blocked from being accessed by state and local governments. Even shale is a valid consideration - yes, it cost more to produce... but that calculation was done when oil was under $60 a barrel. Right now it's over $100. The only thing necessary to implement any of these technologies is an investment in them. Which only requires a sustained period of high oil prices, so that investors can be sure they will get a return. Unfortunately, such investment is driven off by the large amount of uncertainty injected into the market by repeated and vicious government regulations and senseless fines. If profits are going to be cut into with such things, then investors will put their money into industries where it is safer - and thus American oil production will remain low. If the government would just keep their hands off - if they would laissez-faire - then we could be a net oil exporting country.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "fear?" Who have you ever known to be afraid of transgenderism (or homosexuality, for that matter)? I mean that one character from American Beauty was indeed afraid but that was because he was himself repressing his own urges. I've found that generally the term fear or "phobia" is used, but very few people are actually afraid in any sense - they're disgusted, offended, or hatemongering. But not afraid, per se. And secondly, I don't think it's a religious holdover at all. Most men who I've observed or spoken with consider it a challenge or affront to masculinity*, quite apart from anything to do with religion. Then again, I don't converse with people who are that religious because they are insane. *I think this is mistaken - it's certainly distasteful from a masculine standpoint (i.e. "I don't like that; that's not for me"), but it really doesn't challenge masculinity any more than women acting feminine challenges masculinity. Everyone I've ever seen who is gay or transgender is saying that what they do is right for them and has no bearing or application on masculinity or what masculine men are or do. The Euro-style metrosexual thing, however, is very much saying that straight, masculine men ought to act differently, so I'm surprised that that isn't seen as generally more offensive than gay people. But then again I don't think most people really haven't thought this stuff through.

No - what's unappealing is what he is attempting to leash those concepts to. That "conserving" is a necessary or particularly important thing. It's BS through and through - we have plenty of oil, bowing to Arabian savages or no bowing to Arabian savages.

I don't think that transgenderism is any different, morally, from homosexuality. What conclusions one has about homosexuality, I think would necessarily have to apply to transgenerderism.

Geez, who brought long haired men into this? Bad idea. Baaaad idea.

I stopped listening about 1/4 of the way through because we have more than enough oil to become an oil exporting nation. The solution is to stop being idiotic about our crippling regulation of the domestic industry and our pitiful prosecution of the war. The solution is not to pointlessly waste money and effort to convert our economy to needless alternative technologies.

Er, oops. Looks like your thread is going in that direction. To answer your question, no, I hadn't noticed anything like that. For the most part, mainstream attitudes on international politics are dictated by the Left, especially since Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left, it seems. I'd say at first glance that the key to finding out why China gets a pass on some things they do but not others would be to get inside the head of a lefty. Which is the path you're basically on here. Kill millions of people? Sure. Brutally snuff out anything approaching individualism? Go right ahead! Send soldiers to make war on Americans in Korea? Nothing could be grander! Mess with some vaguely hippie sounding idiot in a colorful toga? No, apparently that is going too far. Actually, I might be on to something there. It's because the Dalai Lama is so much like a hippie, isn't it?

I think that, whatever one might call this position, it clearly is not anarchy. I don't think that the arguments that attempt to treat this as anarchy are particularly productive here, either. What would best be answered: Suppose there is a vigilante who acts justly and can prove before a court of law that his actions fit the standards of an objective government. Whose rights has he violated and what specific right or rights?

I take it you haven't read my posts, then?