Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

cigarettes, tattoos, and homosexuality

Rate this topic


otemporaomores
 Share

Recommended Posts

i know that cigarettes are a willful evil to myself, but i don't much reason living past 80 or so at the latest. thoughts?

i want to get a tattoo of the law of identity. i've wanted a tattoo for some time now, but before i started studying objectivism, i couldn't think of anything that'd last forever. the law of identity will, but will my desire to have permanent ink on me last? any thoughts?

in best of q & a, ayn rand says that all laws on homosexuality should be repealed (agreed), but she says, "i don't necessarily regard the pratice as moral." why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i know that cigarettes are a willful evil to myself, but i don't much reason living past 80 or so at the latest. thoughts?

i want to get a tattoo of the law of identity. i've wanted a tattoo for some time now, but before i started studying objectivism, i couldn't think of anything that'd last forever. the law of identity will, but will my desire to have permanent ink on me last? any thoughts?

in best of q & a, ayn rand says that all laws on homosexuality should be repealed (agreed), but she says, "i don't necessarily regard the pratice as moral." why?

I'm getting this tattooed on my back. 5734_125336815019_649875019_3400683_4340053_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you're certain that you want ink on your skin until it decomposes?

Seems to follow if one rationally makes that decision to get a tattoo rather pay someone to do the work with a Sharpie.

As for homosexuality and what Rand has state, I believe it comes down to the rational functioning of the human body. But what one does in one's bedroom is one's choice regardless of that function as long as their is no act of force, thus, no reason for government involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to follow if one rationally makes that decision to get a tattoo rather pay someone to do the work with a Sharpie.

As for homosexuality and what Rand has state, I believe it comes down to the rational functioning of the human body. But what one does in one's bedroom is one's choice regardless of that function as long as their is no act of force, thus, no reason for government involvement.

it wouldn't be the rational functioning of the body, it'd be of the mind. that is my question: why is that decision of the mind irrational and immoral?

Why would you want to wait until you're 80 to die? Why not get it over with quicker?

but cigarettes aren't something that effect you that quickly. the earliest death i have ever heard of is 46. and as for age, all those near or past that age seem to feel it to be hard to make it through the day, let alone the year. i'm not saying that this will necessarily be my path, i'm just making observations. i honestly don't think i've ever met a truly happy person past the age of 60 or so, but i also haven't met very many 'truly happy' people. i don't know, i have many thoughts to boil over on the subject.

Edited by otemporaomores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but cigarettes aren't something that effect you that quickly. the earliest death i have ever heard of is 46. and as for age, all those near or past that age seem to feel it to be hard to make it through the day, let alone the year.
Maybe your problem is that you only know a bunch of irrational or goalless old people who look forward to death. For people who repudiate the active mind and consider existence to be hell on Earth, living to age 80 and not dying much sooner would be appropriate punishment for their decision as to how to live their lives. Decades ago they made the ultimate decision to die, and then didn't have the courage to speed up the process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe your problem is that you only know a bunch of irrational or goalless old people who look forward to death. For people who repudiate the active mind and consider existence to be hell on Earth, living to age 80 and not dying much sooner would be appropriate punishment for their decision as to how to live their lives. Decades ago they made the ultimate decision to die, and then didn't have the courage to speed up the process.

Very well said, I've thought that very thing for years. I always asked, "why would anyone want to die?" I always thought if was because people didnt know how to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in best of q & a, ayn rand says that all laws on homosexuality should be repealed (agreed), but she says, "i don't necessarily regard the pratice as moral." why?

You would have to ask Ayn Rand (Something we unfortunately cannot do). Ayn Rand never gave her reasons, as far as I know, for her opinions on homosexuality. All we have is an off-handed comment from an informal Q & A session -- hardly anything at all.

You could perhaps ask "As an Objectivist, what is your opinion on Homosexuality? And if it is a negative one, why?" No one can presume to know what Ayn Rand thought, except perhaps her closest friends, and I am not aware of any of them extrapolating upon her thoughts in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know that cigarettes are a willful evil to myself, but i don't much reason living past 80 or so at the latest. thoughts?

There's no connection between cigarettes and dying at 80. The average age of death for males in the US would be around 80, I guess, but for those with a lifetime of smoking the average is significantly less. (let's say 65, 70 maybe, I'm sure there are exact statistics, but I've quite smoking, so I don't care)

Which still doesn't mean that a smoker will die at seventy. You could still die at 40 or 45, or live to be 100. It's just that the likelihood of you dying at 40 will be the same as the likelihood of me dying at 55 or 60. And the likelihood of you hitting 80 or 100 is much less too.

But if your goal is to live exactly 70 years, the best course of action would be to not smoke and then kill yourself at 70. I believe a majority of long term smokers don't live to be 70, so if you're trying to accomplish a prolonged and agonizing death, from lung or liver cancer, at the ripe old age of 70, smoking is still not the way to go.

i want to get a tattoo of the law of identity. i've wanted a tattoo for some time now, but before i started studying objectivism, i couldn't think of anything that'd last forever. the law of identity will, but will my desire to have permanent ink on me last? any thoughts?

My only thought is that you are not giving any reasons for these "wants" you're having. That's the big issue, why aren't you thinking rationally about this decision, why are you being impulsive?

As for tattoos, I don't think there would be a rational reason for tattooing anything on you, not even something cool like Chinese letters or a great drawing, let alone "A is A", which most people won't get, and those who will get it will probably still think less of you for having a tattoo.

in best of q & a, ayn rand says that all laws on homosexuality should be repealed (agreed), but she says, "i don't necessarily regard the pratice as moral." why?

Because, at the time she said this, psychology papers described being gay as sexual deviance, caused by psychological depravity. She didn't have gay friends or modern media openly discussing homosexuality, her best source of information was the field of Psychology. That information turned out to be wrong.

But this is a little like asking why didn't Aristotle or Thales know that lightning was electricity? How could they have been so stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cigarettes will kill you. Too much of any one chemical will give you cancer of some sort of another. But, what do I care? Smoke 'em if you got 'em. It's your freedom.

Nothing wrong with tattoos, if you accept the responsibility of their permanence. I have four tattoos. In retrospect, I still love two of them. I could do without the other two, but I don't regret it, because I accepted their reality when I got them.

Here's the thing with homos. There's nothing wrong or scary about it--it's their freedom. Conservative fears are based on Christian beliefs and their Christian ... prudishness. Of course, homosexuality is also real natural selection in action. The majority of gays are either defective human beings, in their hormone levels or production (for some reason or another), OR are people who have given up on pursuing the opposite sex.

If gays are allowed to be married, however, it bypasses that 'natural selection' by allowing them to artificially reproduce through adoption. That may or may not be important, according to Objectivist values. We are intended to make nature adapt to US, after all. Gay marriage does present an issue with freedom and individual rights, however. People don't have 'a right to get married'. That's a religious institution. And by forcing churches to marry gays through law, that impinges upon the right of the church, who may not want to do it because it's against their tenets. And a church refusing law-imposed gay marriage, by standing up for their beliefs, would be stripped of their tax-exempt status, and 'go out of business'.

Now, I don't give a damn about a church's 'tenets'. I despise organized religion. But I do care about their RIGHT to have their religion. And gay marriage is wrong because it steps on the rights of the church where a theoretical gay couple may demand to be married.

If gays get married in a courthouse, outside of religious influence that would otherwise deny them, then the only issue is that of bypassing natural selection. Which I think is wrong, but that's a personal opinion. Which doesn't threaten liberty in any way, so I wouldn't stand in their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but cigarettes aren't something that effect you that quickly. the earliest death i have ever heard of is 46. and as for age, all those near or past that age seem to feel it to be hard to make it through the day, let alone the year. i'm not saying that this will necessarily be my path, i'm just making observations. i honestly don't think i've ever met a truly happy person past the age of 60 or so, but i also haven't met very many 'truly happy' people. i don't know, i have many thoughts to boil over on the subject.

The important thing to learn here is that regular cigarette smoking causes negative effects toward health well before those those problems compound and result in death. Heart disease, COPD (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), chronic bronchitis and emphysema by themselves, and other diseases start affecting life well before one dies. With these diseases, depending on when they started, one's quality of life will go down well before the age of 70; they may cause unnecessary pain and misery, affecting one's happiness and goals. It's true that the effects of cigarette smoking isn't noticed as much by the young, or the young and simi-young (around 30yrs) who don't lead a sedentary lifestyle, but eventually the effects will catch up; and one who smokes and does exercise can accomplish more after they've stopped smoking. With all this considered, it's not worth it for me to smoke cigarettes; and if you think it would be terrible to live past 70, think about what it would be like to live with these diseases before you hit 60, or how fatigued and damaged the body will be after 40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, get a clue. No church is forced by law to marry anyone.

Uh ... get a clue. What do you think the legislation is trying to do? Regulations to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services, premises, and education. What do you think would happen if a gay couple who went to some Christian church wanted their church to marry them and the church said 'no'? They could file for discrimination, they'd win, and the church would be ordered to marry them or lose their tax-exempt status.

More regulation. More control. More loss of rights and freedom. It's not about gays getting married--it's about forcing a business (the church) to do something that they don't want to do, even though it's their right not to, and being shut down if they don't comply. Unintended consequences.

Think before you retort.

Homosexuality can be passed from parent to adopted child?

An adopted child would definitely be predisposed to at least 'trying out' being gay, because that's what he/she considers normal from the way they were raised. I don't particularly care about the individual adopted kids, but it would be sad that they'd be forced into that situation by circumstance.

Remember--I don't have a problem with gays being gay and sticking to themselves. But I do acknowledge that being gay is either an abnormality (which normal kids shouldn't be subjected to learning is 'normal') or the result of failure at social mating behavior.

Edited by ooghost1oo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An adopted child would definitely be predisposed to at least 'trying out' being gay, because that's what he/she considers normal from the way they were raised. I don't particularly care about the individual adopted kids, but it would be sad that they'd be forced into that situation by circumstance.

Definitely predisposed? You have data?

What about just knowing someone that is gay? Would that predispose someone to a gay "try out"?

Remember--I don't have a problem with gays being gay and sticking to themselves. But I do acknowledge that being gay is either an abnormality (which normal kids shouldn't be subjected to learning is 'normal') or the result of failure at social mating behavior.

What if gay individuals need your services or the services of your company? Would you refuse them service or goods, value for value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely predisposed? You have data?

What about just knowing someone that is gay? Would that predispose someone to a gay "try out"?

What if gay individuals need your services or the services of your company? Would you refuse them service or goods, value for value?

Oh, what a tiff I've caused.

I don't have 'data' about a non-gay child being raised gay. But it seems like common sense to me--my lack of hard evidence won't change my mind, and it shouldn't change yours. It's evident reality. I will point out children raised in abusive households that have developed PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), with which I have experience. You can google it yourself for support if you're interested in the truth. Kids raised in abusive relationships have a real tough time with normal relationships as adults, because they've been conditioned to accept a crazy, abusive, stressful, dramafied environment as 'the norm'. If they ever get into a normal relationship that is peaceful, they're apt to sabotage it themselves by creating drama out of thin air, abusing their spouse, etc., because a 'normal' environment is uncomfortable and scary for them. They seek to create the abnormal environment they understand as normal to cope. The same premise applies.

I wouldn't deny gays goods and services--I don't care. But if I were a Christian minister, and they wanted me to marry them, I would, because being gay is something Christians consider wrong and it would be wrong to marry them, according to their beliefs. Say what you will about their beliefs (I'm not fond of Christians), BUT ... it is THEIR beliefs, and they have a RIGHT to it.

We here are radical Capitalists, who uphold the rights of the individual on high. I can't believe you guys don't see this.

Get out of your politically correct boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, what a tiff I've caused.

I don't have 'data' about a non-gay child being raised gay. But it seems like common sense to me--my lack of hard evidence won't change my mind, and it shouldn't change yours. It's evident reality. I will point out children raised in abusive households that have developed PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), with which I have experience. You can google it yourself for support if you're interested in the truth. Kids raised in abusive relationships have a real tough time with normal relationships as adults, because they've been conditioned to accept a crazy, abusive, stressful, dramafied environment as 'the norm'. If they ever get into a normal relationship that is peaceful, they're apt to sabotage it themselves by creating drama out of thin air, abusing their spouse, etc., because a 'normal' environment is uncomfortable and scary for them. They seek to create the abnormal environment they understand as normal to cope. The same premise applies.

I'm trying to recognize your facts when above you use words like "evident reality", "tough time", "apt"...

I know people that sabotage relationships that didn't come from abusive households.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the legislation is trying to do? Regulations to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services, premises, and education.
You're just making right-wing paranoid propaganda up. There is no legislation to require churches to marry anyone. Read the First Amendment to see why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh ... get a clue. What do you think the legislation is trying to do?

There's no need to speculate. There is legislation in place in several US states, in Canada, and in Europe: it accomplished allowing gays to marry, and churches to select whom they wish to marry, straight or gay.

We here are radical Capitalists, who uphold the rights of the individual on high. I can't believe you guys don't see this.

Get out of your politically correct boxes.

Would these be acceptable, politically incorrect behaviour:

"Are you French? Those people suck, they are cowards and frog-eaters. Who will march under the Arc de Triomphe next , the snails you like munching on?

You better be French, otherwise the spelling makes you a retard."?

If not, what do you think is wrong with it, and how is it different from you making silly generalizations about gay families?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just making right-wing paranoid propaganda up. There is no legislation to require churches to marry anyone. Read the First Amendment to see why.

BS. It's not 'right wing propaganda'. It's FACT. Something called 'Unintended Consequences'. It's what happens when legislatures are so quick to make laws based on fads of political correctness and the winds of the daily public controversies that they don't stop and think of the further effects of those laws.

December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.

September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.

Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side. So now, the church is ordered to wed Bob and Gary, but the pastor and his organization doesn't want to because they firmly believe it wrong, evil, immoral, against the bible, etc ad nauseam. So now the church is being forced to do something they firmly believe against doing, under threat of force by the state.

You don't see a problem with that?

Here's how it should go, if it ever does:

June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day.

It's about freedom, the rights of the individual, and the rights of the church, as a business. Not gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS. It's not 'right wing propaganda'. It's FACT. Something called 'Unintended Consequences'. It's what happens when legislatures are so quick to make laws based on fads of political correctness and the winds of the daily public controversies that they don't stop and think of the further effects of those laws.

December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.

September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.

Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side. So now, the church is ordered to wed Bob and Gary, but the pastor and his organization doesn't want to because they firmly believe it wrong, evil, immoral, against the bible, etc ad nauseam. So now the church is being forced to do something they firmly believe against doing, under threat of force by the state.

You don't see a problem with that?

Here's how it should go, if it ever does:

June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day.

It's about freedom, the rights of the individual, and the rights of the church, as a business. Not gay marriage.

So, how has the rights of the church been harmed? Certainly, it cannot have rights over an individual, or do you disagree?

In your example, why did Bob & Gary win? What law was on their side?

There is nothing in the wikipedia link that had anything to do with churches being required to marry anyone. So, how does your example work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS. It's not 'right wing propaganda'. It's FACT. Something called 'Unintended Consequences'. It's what happens when legislatures are so quick to make laws based on fads of political correctness and the winds of the daily public controversies that they don't stop and think of the further effects of those laws.

December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.

September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.

Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side. So now, the church is ordered to wed Bob and Gary, but the pastor and his organization doesn't want to because they firmly believe it wrong, evil, immoral, against the bible, etc ad nauseam. So now the church is being forced to do something they firmly believe against doing, under threat of force by the state.

I now recognize the point you're trying to make regarding legalizing gay marriage and law preventing discrimination in the private realm--this would apply to all institutions, not just churches. Most likely though, this consequence you're talking about would happen further along into the future. One similar example would be the topic of affirmative action; it was legalized for government use long ago, and now there are lawsuits and supreme court cases debating its legality for private or semi-private uses (public universities for example)--I think this is to be true, but I didn't research it, if my history is incorrect please let me know. However, I do think that the way you presented your point makes it seems that erosional of churches freedom is corollary to freedom in marriage, and this is definitely a reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how has the rights of the church been harmed?

Because the church, like any business, has the right to run their business their OWN way. Not to be told how they'll do it. Individuals do NOT have the right to another person's goods and services. The church is in the right in this case. It's all about VOLUNTARY exchange--by mutual consent--not compulsory. Just like Rearden refusing to sell Readen metal to the companies he didn't want to do business with. It's his right. See?

I looked and looked, but couldn't find (within a reasonable amount of time) any references to court cases (yet) about a gay couple suing a church for discrimination in a gay marriage state. I'm sure it's out there, but even if it's not--just wait.

Think about the days of Affirmative Action with black people suing companies for not hiring them (for one reason or another) by playing the race card. Wait and see what happens when Bob and Gary, or any other gay couple with an equality bug up their asses try to sue a church for discriminating against them. Wait and see what happens in this ridiculous time of frivolous lawsuits. Read between the lines.

Do individuals have a RIGHT to the services of another? If you think they do, you certainly don't belong HERE...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If gays are allowed to be married, however, it bypasses that 'natural selection' by allowing them to artificially reproduce through adoption.

1) Adopted children do not inherit any traits from their adoptive parents. You're thinking of a biological impossibility even more ridiculous than Lysenkoism.

2) Lots of older gay men married to cover up their homosexuality and managed to impregnate their wives, and viceversa for lesbians.

3) Nothing prevents a gay man from selling sperm, nor lesbians from selling their eggs or being artificially inseminated.

4) Lots of other things "bypass" natural selection. Reproductive therapies (look them up), medical treatment for genetic conditions, sperm banks, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...