Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kelly Bennett

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kelly Bennett

  1. I know the quote is out of context, BUT it really doesn't matter if he was referring to the roads or the business. The meaning is very clear in the context of the speech. More importantly, out of context or not, the phrase does represent the context of his speech more than any other line. It captures his whole philosophy w.r.t independence. The fact that people see this statement as justified by the rest of the speech is, in my opinion, an absolutely perfect example of what is wrong with the world today.

    Obama is not arguing for the obvious proposition that people receive help from others and benefit from the existence of roads, bridges and teachers. Such a statement, as mentioned above, would not even deserve uttering it is so trivial. His argument is a brazen attack on individualism, in a sense much much deeper than politics.

    The fact that his speech as a whole is regarded by so many Americans as non-controversial is a very bad sign. Obama has been a parasite so long, it's no wonder he is unable to perceive a man as an individuals even with respect to him being the creator of a business, but that the rest of our culture is also unable... The average American's philosophy has disarmed them. The second-handers claim their minds don't exist (individual thought is a myth), their philosophy has no answer. The looters claim the right to their achievements, their philosophy provides no defense. In fact, it's worse than that, their philosophy demands that they agree. And so they do.

    Nothing has ever reminded me so much of the passage from Galt's speech: "

    When they yell that it is selfish to be certain that you are right, you hasten to assure them that you’re certain of nothing. When they shout that it’s immoral to stand on your convictions, you assure them that you have no convictions whatever."

    In the same pattern, you can observe people (almost every economic commentator) who sense that Obama's statement is wrong, wrong in some very important way, yet the have no moral defense.

    We have Peter Keating and James Taggart combined into one president.

  2. "Zero/Death Worship" is a concept that intrigued me when I first started learning about objectivism, but it took me a very long time to understand exactly what Rand ment and I still haven't been able to think of a good way to articulate the concept to other people without coming across as a nut. I'm looking for some good introduction videos or audio clips (or articles) that explain the concept. Any help would be appreciated!

  3. I'm still not sure if it is proper to mark the yes I have evidence of them box.

    Why not.... YOU are evidence! We are on a planet in space. There is nothing mystical about Earth. I agree that we don't have enough evidence to know for sure, but it is not arbitrary to hypothosise that there is another ball out there among the zillions similar ours.

  4. This was one of my favorite interviews I've seen... (I still want to see the Carson interviews... I've only read transcripts, but those appeared to be good too).

    Snyder doesn't seem to be trying to put her on the defensive (the way Mike Wallace and Donahue did). Snyder was asking questions and allowing her time to respond.

    Oh man, I've had my eye out for the Carson interviews for a while. Never been able to find them <_<

  5. - That depends how you percieve it, people endure far worse for far less quite frequently.

    But given that your talking about the whole experience of casual sex, not just the actual sex, it can be seperated from escorts so its not really that relevant and we dont need to take it that much further ;).

    Its more interesting to what degree casual sex interfere with you getting into meaningfull relationships, as I mention in the second part of my original response.

    I agree that this would be a rational reason not to have casual sex, but in my experience the two are not correlated. In fact, if they are, the correlation might be in the other direction.

  6. - But hanging out with someone is not really comparable to your description of sex as a form of multiplayer masturbation, so its social context would be very different and im not sure it would apply.

    Given that casual sex is exclusively about the act of penetration, I doubt it would be akward for you.

    It is not just about the act of penetration - that is simply one part of it. The whole experience is pleasurable, from the first kiss up to and including the part where you cuddle and sleep. It's supposed to be multiplayer - by that I mean, fun for both players. Otherwise it's more like an attack on them that they happen to need the money enough to endure, and that does not sound fun for either party.

    - I don't really see how something can be both moral and a bad psychological sign.. Surely if your doing something that is genuinely in your interest, it would not be a bad psychological sign at all.

    That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about it for a while before I can respond to it.

  7. You only got 9 results turning up? Hmm. I've got two pages of threads when I enter those terms. This is the URL of my search results, in case we're getting different results. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&andor_type=&sid=6472caa87aa5204a09a09cd568ee50ed&search_term=%22casual+sex%22&search_app=forums&st=0 In the two pages of results I got, there are definitely more relevant ones than the nine results you got, which I agree aren't the greatest for what you were interested in. This thread is a longer one I remember in particular which is made specifically about this topic, not just getting into it in a tangent: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=7645&st=0

    Well, thats very strange that I got different results o_º

    That link does seem a heck of a lot more relevant than anything that come up when I searched. I'll check it out, thanks!

    Given your description of point one, seeing sex as basically multiplayer masturbation one can use as a treat for oneself - is there then any moral difference between simply paying escorts rather then going through the motions of actually having to charm a member of the opposite (or same, for that matter) sex?

    I intuitively agree that casual sex is not necessarily a bad thing, however im having trouble differentiating it from outright prostitution on a moral level. All though you would think there would be one (I can think of several contexts where the use of escorts would be explicitly moral) - right..?

    One possible difference is that the act wouldn't be fun anymore if you couldn't be sure the other person was having fun. It would be like paying someone to hang out with you - it would be super awkward and unsatisfying if you knew they didn't actually want to share your company. As far as the morality of it… Not sure… I'm tempted to say it would be moral, but a bad sign psychologically. And a very bad sign for the prostitute. But I haven't given it enough thought to be sure.

  8. Hmm, as I recall, the "how many partners have you had?" thread quite quickly turned into a discussion on casual sex, so that one is useful to read anyway. The thread isn't so old that I think someone would mind you necroing it. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=17667&st=80 is an even more recent thread, posts around page 4 addresses some of your questions. Or also just last week someone posted in that thread basically asking similar questions. I don't have any issue with answering your question here, but I'm more curious if either of those 2 threads I mentioned are any helpful.

    As for point 3, well, you couldn't exactly call that art. That's more imagination than anything. You wouldn't call an acid trip (or any other induced imagination) "interactive art" as it doesn't involve any amount of metaphysical value judgment or even re-creation of reality. If you're just speaking of the experience, it involves another person, so that to me sounds like specifically ignoring the meaning of the actual thing that makes the sex possible.

    Thanks for the link. While the discussion is related, I don't think it's the same as what I'm brining up here. Also, given the possibility that someone in the future might be interested in the same issues, I don't think it's a good idea to bury this topic by sidelining an old thread with my non-entierly-consistant topic.

    On your response to my 3rd point: Thanks for the reply! I'm of course using the word 'art' here loosely. I don't mean that you are actually creating art, but that you are performing an act that has many of the same benefits as art and could be used to achieve some of the same ends.

    What I really find interesting about your response is the line "it involves another person, so that to me sounds like specifically ignoring the meaning of the actual thing that makes the sex possible." I'm not 100% sure I follow the logic - what meaning is it ignoring? And anyway, sex is possible without much meaning. All you need is whatever subconscious meaning you attach to physically attractive women. Whether or not it's good sex or bad sex or rational sex or irrational sex I guess is the debate, but there is no question that it is possible.

  9. Put "casual sex" into the search bar. There are numerous threads where this topic has been discussed in detail before that you can find this way which probably have some answers to your questions, and if you still have more questions, its useful to keep information on a topic in one place and limit the number of places that have to be checked on a topic in the future.

    I did that thank you.

    Casual sex returns exactly 9 hits - None of which are my questions. Did you even read my post?

    If you think my question has already been asked please tell me which of the 9 topics I should read:

    I fantasize about other women <-- how to find just one woman attractive, is it possible? is it just the wrong girl etc…

    Does how your partner views [sic] sex affect your view of… <-- person asserting that sex has 'inherent value' and upset that his GF doesn't think so

    Youth and Sex <-- See title

    People who are sexually promiscuous make me mad <-- mad that people don't think of sex like he does/ people telling him not to worry about what other people do

    The "how many partners have you had?" question <-- how do you respond to this question / do you answer it, does it tell you anything about someone's past or present

    Why are men's clothes so boring? <-- see title

    I'm seeing a girl who has a boyfriend<-- guy thinks girl likes him more than her BF

    Study finds facial features correlate with good parenting <-- obviously unrelated.

    Did I miss something?

    And by the way, most of these topics are years old.

  10. What is the argument against casual sex?

    I have the following basic problems with the objectivist view (as I understand it):

    1.I am in total agreement that meaningful sex with someone you love and / or admire is incomparably better than sex with someone you barely know, but that doesn't mean that the latter isn't enjoyable at all. If you're not having sex as some misguided attempt to make yourself feel more valuable or as some substitute for self-esteem, then what is the problem? Assuming you don't make it a main focus of your life, but perhaps an occasional 'treat', isn't this something that makes your life more enjoyable?

    2.I am in total agreement that sex can be a deep, 'spiritual', philosophic experience, and that this improves it's quality x fold, but I also see sex as being something that can offer purely physical pleasure, like a massage, or masturbation. For guys (I can't speak for women) sex *can* be purely physical. You can be turned on by and "get off" on women you don't know anything about. Take for proof of this the immense popularity of pornography which is typically completely devoid of any 'feeling', context, or hint into the characters of the women performing. Men are simply wired to want sex, and we are wired with the ability to be aroused by simply seeing women naked. Where is the harm in having adult, consenting sex for the sole purpose of satisfying a physical desire? (Again, assuming you don't make it a major focus of your life or expect it to substitute values, or give you self esteem) Almost all objectivists agree that masturbation is OK - why then isn't this form of sex, which is essentially just multiplayer masturbation? (People get so worked up about sex, but sometimes it's really just two (or more) people rubbing their body parts together… I just have a hard time taking this kind of sex too seriously. I mean, what is there to get so upset about?)

    3.Sex as interactive art : So art can give you a sense of living in your ideal world. A movie or book can give you a sense of what it would be like to reach your goals. Well, what about sex with a beautiful woman?? Can you not do a bit of role play in your head and fantasies that she is a heroine and for that moment feel some sense of what it would be like to achieve your goals? (Again assuming you don't make it a major focus of your life bla bla bla bla…). I don't believe this is evasion, any more than you could say it's evasion to believe that Ragnar Danneskjöld is a real person when you read AS.

    With all this sex talk I better throw in the pimp smiley :pimp:

  11. I think John Galt says it best:

    " If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics’ Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay cheek was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden."

  12. I've never seen a heavyweight fighter explode with that kind of speed and precision. To describe what he does in that video as rushing in, "flailing," is a gross misrepresentation.

    Totally! He is ultra fast for a heavyweight. His knockout punch vs. Bret Rogers was like a lightning bolt, and virtually no telegraphing either.

    it's really a shame that he is almost unknown in America. I guess in Russia he is a superstar, Putin even attends his fights and he carried the torch for Russia during the Olympics.

  • Create New...