Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff on date rape

Rate this topic


Ninth Doctor

Recommended Posts

What a joke this thread is and now it has turned farcical!!! Now we are talking about civility!?!?

And the person who recognizes when another has “crossed the line into incivility” is the person whose signature is "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo" - Gaius Valerius Catullus, which translates to “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!!

If the irony wasn’t so sad, disgusting and irrational it might be funny.

Imagine getting a letter from someone whose signature wasn’t “Sincerely” or “Cordially” or even “Honestly” or “Angrily” but instead they signed “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!! Would you ever speak to them again? And what would it say about you if you did?

Of course this person cowers and hides behind a dead language, which further demonstrates his character.

And if you think that maybe he is just being cute or literarily astute and doesn’t actually comport himself that way, you are wrong. This is how he converses with those whom he disagrees. He has used the same invective in this thread:



Or do you think non-consensual sex doesn’t hurt? Tell you what, I have it on good authority that with sufficient lubrication in place, non-consensual anal sex doesn’t result in injury. Imagine a scenario where you find yourself bent over a chair, you’re saying no, but your rapist is a highly regarded Objectivist authority (and judo master), and he quotes chapter and verse at you from Peikoff podcasts as he gets busy. Maybe he threw some code words at you earlier; it’s a break during OCON, and you were drinking together at the bar, talking meta-ethics, and you unknowingly communicated “yes, I’m game for a buggering”, when you thought you were affirming the primacy of existence. Remember, once you’ve gone up to his room, whatever you say from that point on is too late, taking Peikoff literally.

Can you read how personal and insulting his attacks are? Yes, he is an authority and if it is only in word and not deed, that is bad enough.

This is the person who finds LP’s words “horrifying”??? I doubt this person could be horrified by anything.

Maybe he was just having a bad day?:


Are you going to tell us what your view of that context is? Maybe explain how so many people here are getting it wrong? Tell us what he really meant? Or did you just come here to ejaculate?



Maybe not.

This person doesn’t like Leonard Peikoff, is dedicated to his persecution and, as far as I can tell, his only contribution to this site is just that. He admits that this is his motive and has vowed to continue attacking him:



Back to “personally attacking” Peikoff. I’ve attacked a lot of things he’s said over the last few years, and wouldn’t have bothered if they were said by just about anyone else. His statements about the Ground Zero Mosque, McCaskey, the transgender (including their doctors(!)), and so on weren’t inherently interesting. The problem is that Ayn Rand and Objectivism are so visibly saddled with what Nathaniel Branden laconically (yet accurately) called “not a serious thinker”. He drives good minds away and perpetuates the public image of a Randroid loony cult. So, do I personally attack him? In a sense yes, I acknowledge that I do specifically target his public statements. In fact, the main value (and enjoyment) to be had from listening to his podcasts comes from the off-the-wall stuff he says, otherwise I’d have tuned out long ago.

The gall of a person who attacks Peikoff’s character and intellect using the words of a known liar and pretender, whom Ayn Rand herself disavowed, is almost immeasurable. The only people who “perpetuate the public image of a Randroid loony cult” are the ones this person sanctions: the Brandens and David Kelley.

If you think he reserves himself to only an intellectual attack you are wrong:

You can’t count on him [Peikoff] to be consistent with Objectivist principles, either in word or deed.


He has compared LP to Hitler:

I fear that the attitude you’re evincing here is what Ayn Rand called, I believe it was in her Apollo and Dionysus lecture, a “mentality that’s ready for a Führer”. And Peikoff is one very odd choice for Führer, hate to say it but he’s never been charismatic in the least. Then again, neither was Hitler.

He has alluded to LP as a King:


I read into softwareNerd’s comment a day or two ago, where he said that he expects Peikoff to respond, a hint of inside information; that he’d maybe communicated with someone in the vicinity of the throne. I guess all we can do is stay tuned.

He admits to comparing LP to a psychotic:

Oops, I did call him a "loose cannon", and then compared him to Captain Queeg. But mostly I've tried to keep the thread on topic.

To think that you can have a rational conversation with this person about LP is like thinking you can have a rational conversation with the Pope about ethics …

And now the crème de la crème. He and another pontiff want those who defended Peikoff originally to recant. Presumably this would show some level of integrity. Where is their integrity when they were both sneering and prognosticating about how Peikoff would defend his statements? When Peikoff does what neither said he would, when he completely reverses himself, they supposedly still find room to denounce him. They can’t admit they were wrong but they somehow find fault in other’s comparable action? Integrity indeed.

But maybe he has an intellectually honest point. Maybe, somehow, his character hasn’t polluted his intellect. Not true, here are his questions about what Peikoff said the second time:


He does seem to leave open, by implication, that there are contexts were a man can force himself on a woman, but the examples he gives are all to the contrary. [...] His view on withdrawal of consent is still not entirely clear, or it’s still wrong, I’m not sure which. [...] I’m left wondering if he thinks it’s ok to keep pounding away for 30 minutes while the woman is saying ‘no’ and ‘stop’. But I doubt he means that, and doubt we'll be hearing further clarifications.

Now he’s saying that once penetration has occurred, she can no longer withdraw consent for sex.

He is saying that Peikoff’s “position is not clear,” but he has mischaracterized and misrepresented what Peikoff’s position is.

Here is what Peikoff actually said:

“The woman has a right to say no, a moral right”.

Even in the middle of sex, if, for instance (among other things) “something in his desires sexually, in the style of sex he wanted, which turned her off completely”

“They all have the right to refuse, and when they do the man has no right to assert himself forcibly”

Peikoff’s position is perfectly clear.

… But this person hasn’t come here for rational discussion. How can you expect to have a rational discussion with someone who answers you by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. He disrespects you just by having a conversation with you. If he disagrees with you but maybe you make some good points, he greets your argument by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. If he agrees with you, he still doesn’t respect you. Like a child he says from his hiding place “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”.

Please don’t sanction his behavior any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the summary in post 243:

Rational line = genital connection. Any voluntary instance of genital connection means that the woman can no longer say "yes" (I'm assuming he actually means "no" here because it doesn't make sense within the context of what he's talking about, but I copied his wording anyway), otherwise saying "no" in the midst of sex before climax, that "no" is not valid.

Conclusion: Disagrees that any time a woman says no, in any context, it absolutely must be upheld by the man. Examples above (husband and wife).

Everything before this point I followed in what Peikoff was saying, and had no major issues with what was said. The whole bit about a “no” not being sufficient for rape makes sense, to the extent his examples aren't sex anyway. Touching someone and the other party saying “no” doesn't quite enter the realm of forceful activity, any more than touching someone's shoulder to move out of the way. This is what I interpret Peikoff to be saying at that point. Some of it is a little confusing, but I am fine with letting that go as just an issue of an extemporaneous medium.

What makes absolutely no sense is the rational line. Why can't consent be taken away once genital connection occurs? In other words, it seems to be that ultimately, all Peikoff is saying is that consent can be withdrawn during and anything before foreplay, but never during intercourse. Perhaps an important question, then, is when an activity becomes force if consent is withdrawn. Hugging a person, for example, generally requires consent to some degree, but it would be quite ridiculous to claim that once the other person says “please stop” that force has occurred. In any case, why should genital contact be a point at which consent can no longer be withdrawn? (Am I the only one who giggles on the inside when reading that last sentence, given the context? >_> )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes absolutely no sense is the rational line. Why can't consent be taken away once genital connection occurs?

Retroactive withdrawals of consent are impossible. "Even God cannot change the past."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise that I think is what bothers me and most here, is the gender-centric one: that the male has the right to perform and conclude the act of sex, regardless of the female's late (even extremely late) objections.

Reverse this. To any man who has not experienced it - it will happen, sometime.

I’ve had the experience of a woman forcibly (or let’s say ‘vigorously’) locking my head between her legs while demanding oral sex. I think that’s a better parallel, but still not quite right. BTW I don’t look back on it in a positive way, but no charges were filed and the relationship even carried on for some time after.

Fact is, women can just lie there and "submit", even when they’re not enjoying it. I don’t think there’s a male equivalent for that, unless you want to bring up something weird like pegging. Here’s something I know has happened to me: GF has something on her mind, something’s bothering her, a problem at work, whatever. With a little consoling caress, a smooch on the back of the neck, she says yeah, let’s do it, thinking that’ll take her mind off the problem. She might even initiate it. A minute (or ten) into the proceedings, the problem has reemerged in her mind, and now she’s not into the sex. This being what Peikoff might call a “loving relationship”, she doesn’t say ‘stop’, but signals that she wants you to finish up. Otherwise, in addition to her work problem, she knows she’s going to have a grumpy partner sleeping next to her. Before long her experience is going to go from ‘not really enjoying it’ to ‘this is starting to hurt, time for him to get the hell off me’, so hopefully you’re done within a couple minutes, before she finally does say ‘stop’. To complicate matters, I’ve had the experience of the GF’s desire soon reigniting, a second wind in the category five hurricane eye-wall gust class, requiring a rematch delayed only by that inconvenient refractory period my fellow males should know all about. Sex can get damn complicated. Unpredictable. When Peikoff talked about the woman being “skittish then falling into it”, that resonated well enough with my experience.

A point I’ve been trying to formulate since the new podcast came out is an ‘altered state of consciousness’ defense. I’ve already established that I disagree with Peikoff’s new formulation, and hold that a woman (or man) can withdraw consent at any time and expect that to be respected. So, now I’m testing out an opposing argument, and maybe someone else can put it on firmer footing. The main point is that passionate sex puts one into what amounts to an altered state of consciousness, kind of like when you’re drifting awake in the morning, and can’t yet will yourself to full consciousness. Or, being very drunk, or high on say, marijuana. Earlier I wrote about how it takes some number of seconds for a ‘stop’ to reach the rational faculty, well, can the sex get so passionate that no stimulus is going to put reason back on her throne? That is, besides ejaculation, followed by a few minutes of refractory period bliss? I’m open to that argument, but it still doesn’t completely line up with my experience. It’s just that you need the equivalent of a blaring alarm clock that snaps you awake. So, imagine the male is going at it full throttle, and the woman, out of the blue, calmly whispers ‘stop’. That’s just not going to register. Did she say something a minute ago? But the same calm whisper would be sufficient to end foreplay, that’s the difference. I’m trying to come up with the best case for what Peikoff’s talking about when he says sometimes a ‘no’ is not valid, and that’s all I’ve got so far. And it's never happened to me. What has happened is she cooed 'I love you', it didn't register so I gave no reply, then I got a talking-to about it later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retroactive withdrawals of consent are impossible. "Even God cannot change the past."

Certainly you couldn't withdraw the consent of sexual contact once it has already occured, but that is different than weather or not consent for sex at all is withdrawn. It's not like having sex is completed upon the first moment of genital contact. You could still withdraw consent to go any further. I'm only saying that there is surely a better rational line to draw.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything before this point I followed in what Peikoff was saying, and had no major issues with what was said. The whole bit about a “no” not being sufficient for rape makes sense, to the extent his examples aren't sex anyway. Touching someone and the other party saying “no” doesn't quite enter the realm of forceful activity, any more than touching someone's shoulder to move out of the way.

Unwanted touching is Battery. Even that shoulder touch could be Battery, depending on the context. Rape is a species of Battery, or Sexual Battery.

http://en.wikipedia..../Battery_(crime)

Retroactive withdrawals of consent are impossible. "Even God cannot change the past."

No one's claiming that Peikoff is talking about retroactive withdrawal of consent. He's saying once penetration has occurred the woman can no longer say 'no', as in 'stop, no more, we're done, now get off me, thrust one more time and it'll be one for the D.A.'. Of course his full statement is more nuanced and contextualized than this, but the basic problem remains.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly you couldn't withdraw the consent of sexual contact once it has already occured, but that is different than weather or not consent for sex at all is withdrawn. It's not like having sex is completed upon the first moment of genital contact. You could still withdraw consent to go any further. I'm only saying that there is surely a better rational line to draw.

No one's claiming that Peikoff is talking about retroactive withdrawal of consent. He's saying once penetration has occurred the woman can no longer say 'no', as in 'stop, no more, we're done, now get off me, thrust one more time and it'll be one for the D.A.'. Of course his full statement is more nuanced and contextualized than this, but the basic problem remains.

From the point 8:59 into the podcast onward Peikoff makes the distinction between the legal and the moral and confines his remarks to the legal definition of rape and what would constitute objective evidence of rape. Legally, and from the point of objectively proving her case, a woman is in the impossible situation of having to prove that she withdrew her consent to continue partway through the act. The objective evidence of intercourse during the consensual portion of the festivities cannot be separated from the objective evidence of the nonconsensual portion (assuming here (as Peikoff remarks) the absence of abuse that leaves marks ). The "rational line" as Peikoff puts it is that once voluntary genital intercourse has commenced the woman has crossed a line and given up the ability to prove rape has been committed. An attempt to "fix" this situation by legislating the acceptance of the woman's word over the man's would also make retroactive withdrawals of consent possible and any evidence that sex occurred at all would be evidence used to establish the rape. There could never again be such a thing as a false rape accusation.

"He's saying once penetration has occurred the woman can no longer say 'no', as in 'stop, no more, we're done, now get off me, thrust one more time and it'll be one for the D.A.'."

Yes, he is saying that with emphasis on the D.A., and he is correct to do so.

In the first 9 minutes Peikoff covers the moral side and concludes that a man ought to stop when asked.

edit: that point in the podcast where he says "she can no longer say 'yes'", the unfinished sentence of the hypothetical woman that makes sense of the 'yes' would be "yes that was rape" or "yes I was raped".

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc K's post and Trebor's subsequent replies disappeared from the thread for a time, so I withheld my response. Now that they've reappeared, here is what I was going to say in reply:

What a joke this thread is and now it has turned farcical!!! Now we are talking about civility!?!?

I don't know, but... I am often tempted to bring "civility" up. I think that it is an important consideration generally, and that the nature of fruitful discussion (especially the kinds of philosophical discourse I believe we aspire to) is somewhat fragile.

It's not always easy for me; I have a temper, and have had one for a very long time. I continue to err and lose my temper from time to time, despite my efforts, and I almost always regret it when that happens.

You and I, and Trebor and I, have managed to engage in civil discussions in the past despite (possibly ongoing) disagreements, and I hope that can continue in the future. Here and now, however, you've seemingly cast aside the substance of Ninth Doctor's critique on the basis of who he is as a person. That is the very essence of "ad hominem" reasoning. Furthermore, it's possible that you have sought to tarnish me in the same attack, by referencing (but not naming) "another pontiff." (Though it's also possible you mean John Link, or someone else; I've certainly never called upon anyone to "recant" their previous positions.) In any event, this is not what we want our discussions to look like. Is it?

I respect that you may personally dislike Ninth Doctor. There are certainly members here for whom I am more or less fond. But I'd hope that you and I would want those who dislike us to concentrate their efforts on arguing (or agreeing) with our arguments and reasoning, and not simply rejecting what we say on the basis of who we are. And I think we owe the other members here the very same consideration.

From the point 8:59 into the podcast onward Peikoff makes the distinction between the legal and the moral and confines his remarks to the legal definition of rape and what would constitute objective evidence of rape.

I completely disagree with this interpretation. Here is the portion which Ninth Doctor transcribed again:

[T]hen the question becomes: what does she have to say ‘no’ to in order to make it rape? If she says yes, kisses, but that’s all. If she then says ‘no’ when he says ‘French kiss’, and he gives her a French kiss, is that rape? Or she agrees to take off the shirt, and he goes to touch her breast and she says ‘no’. Is that ok, is that rape? Is that a case where he’s wrong? Maybe he just thinks she’s shy at the moment, maybe she wants something else, maybe he knows they have a loving relationship and many times she’s felt skittish at the beginning and then fallen into it? If you go by the way some of these people on the internet talk, if ‘Aunt O’ (????) comes out of the woman’s mouth then it’s a monstrous evil, is positively ridiculous.

I mean, I think that the rational line should be genital connection. If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘yes’ (??????). I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid. So, in this sense I do not agree that every time a woman says ‘no’, in any context, no matter whether her husband, no matter what the minor nature of the change, that must be respected. That is simply ridiculous, and can’t be enforced.

Peikoff initially is wondering what a woman "[has] to say 'no' to in order to 'make it rape'." Is it a French kiss against her will, if she'd already agreed to kiss? Is it a man touching a woman's breast against her wishes though she's willingly taken off her shirt? Peikoff's stance is that these are acceptable actions on the man's part, given that the woman may just be "shy at the moment," intuiting that "she wants something else." In any case it's not "a monstrous evil" to ignore the "N-O" that comes out of "the woman's mouth." Arguing that a man must take a woman at her word in these scenarios is "positively ridiculous."

Does it sound like Peikoff is here discussing the legal feasibility of "objectively proving her case" of rape in a court of law? It does not. (Note again his use of "monstrous evil"; he's not just speaking of whether something is provable in a courtroom, but of its general moral significance. Its nature as "rape" or "not rape.") He is instead arguing for times and places where a man is within reason to ignore a woman's apparent lack of consent for sexual actions.

He continues "I mean," so in this second paragraph we're expanding on/continuing the thoughts developed in the first. The "rational line" (between "rape" and "not rape") is "genital connection." He says that if a woman says "no, I don't want this I've changed my mind" (which incidentally shows that he's considered the case of a woman changing her mind; i.e. she does not want this sex any more) that this is not "valid." That it must not necessarily "be respected," depending on context. ("Be respected" by whom? By the court system? No. By the man with whom she is having sex.)

So yeah, I disagree that this has anything to do with a specifically legal context. He's arguing that there are times when a woman may say "no," and that "no" doesn't have to "be respected." Where her attempt to withdraw consent is not "valid." He is consistent with his original podcast in arguing that there is a point at which a woman has consented to sex and may not thereafter withdraw that consent. He has moved that point from showing up at the man's hotel room at night to "genital connection."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read into softwareNerd’s comment a day or two ago, where he said that he expects Peikoff to respond, a hint of inside information; that he’d maybe communicated with someone in the vicinity of the throne.
I just noticed this because Marc quoted you in his post. I spoke to nobody who could ever have a hope of getting an inside scoop on what Peikoff was planning, and don't know any such person anyway. My guess was not even particularly insightful. In fact, it was aEqualsA who had said something like that, and I echoed it. The real secret to the guess being right is being unbiased.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the person who recognizes when another has “crossed the line into incivility” is the person whose signature is "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo" - Gaius Valerius Catullus, which translates to “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!!

If the irony wasn’t so sad, disgusting and irrational it might be funny.

Imagine getting a letter from someone whose signature wasn’t “Sincerely” or “Cordially” or even “Honestly” or “Angrily” but instead they signed “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!! Would you ever speak to them again? And what would it say about you if you did?

Of course this person cowers and hides behind a dead language, which further demonstrates his character.

And if you think that maybe he is just being cute or literarily astute and doesn’t actually comport himself that way, you are wrong. This is how he converses with those whom he disagrees. He has used the same invective in this thread.

The section below a person's post on a forum is called a "signature", but that doesn't necessarily mean it is literally them signing off like they would in a formal letter, specifically intending to address their readers personally with the content of their signature. Signature also may mean that it is a person putting a personal mark or style on something. Correct me if I am wrong please, Ninth, but I believe the Latin quote is there and perhaps used elsewhere for being found kind of funny, that so long ago and in a language and setting typically thought of as being very formal and proper, there's a record of this guy acting completely contrary to that in a way many people often seem to believe is somehow new, a recent degradation in people and society. It isn't meant very seriously at all. You are pinning WAY too much significance on this phrase, like it is an actual attempt at an argument.

Also, not sure if you already had this in mind or not when you posted, but this quote, "Or did you just come here to ejaculate?

" <-- The word "ejaculate" also means (quoting from the dictionary that comes with my word processor) "exclaim something suddenly: to exclaim something suddenly and usually forcefully (literary)" Quite possibly the particular word choice was made out of amusement given the overall content of the thread, but the actual meaning intended was the one about speaking. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation here.)

As to the quote about listening to Peikoff's podcasts because of who they are by and that there is some controversial content at times or else he wouldn't listen - if the podcasts were by somebody that nobody knew or paid any attention to, there potential impact would be so small that it wouldn't be worth expending much effort on countering or agreeing with anything they may say. There is no larger audience to address the agreements or disagreements to in hopes of persuading them one way or another in regard to what the podcast said. In that sense, it is paying attention because peikoff is a figure that garners a lot of attention among Objectivist circles and so lots of people are possibly being impacted by them. As for the part about that he still wouldn't pay attention if there was no controversial content, there would be no need to defend or rebuke the content of those podcasts if it was all stuff that clearly and easily made sense in relation to Objectivism when the audience is by far and large people who already support Objectivism. (Though of course, Ninth Doctor has found things he wants to rebuke much more than things to defend.)

(not addressing Mark in particular here now)

I've seen somebody here again who seemed to think that people talking about supporting withdrawing consent at any time meant that they could basically invalidate their consent they gave earlier on. Unless somebody wants to post and say that they do support such a position, nobody here is talking about withdrawing earlier consent, just withdrawing consent to continue any further.

Personally, I'm still up in the air here on Peikoff's statements. As I stated earlier about the new podcast, I found it a bit confusing. Early on there are some statements that definitely sound like unequivocal support for the ability of a person to call an end to sex at any time. This is good. Later in the podcast though are things he says which don't seem to line up with those earlier statements. This part is just frustrating. He is making both sets of statements apparently with full support of each of them. They can't both be true at once though. So which set supersedes the other and how do we know without just resorting to what we want to be the set that comes out on top? I still think the idea of Peikoff actually believing that somebody can disregard a partner's expressed cessation of consent to continue sex is highly contrary to what I would expect of him, so I'm not ready to take those later statements seriously and for what they seem to be. Basically, Peikoff's clarification could use a further clarification I think, preferably writing it down before recording it and giving it at least one read over to check for accuracy before reading it aloud to record it. Getting yet another clarification podcast though I don't think is very likely. It sure would be nice if it did happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the person who recognizes when another has “crossed the line into incivility” is the person whose signature is "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo" - Gaius Valerius Catullus, which translates to “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!!

Oh dear. The last time Marc K and I got into a flame war the whole thing was deleted by the moderators, therefore I don’t see the point in putting a lot of energy into writing a rebuttal.

My signature line is intended to be a joke. Catullus also intended it to be a joke, though it was also a reply to critics. They were saying that he was “soft”, so here he’s offering to show them how “hard” he can be. The idea is that fellow OOers will see this Latin phrase and say hmm, it has “ego” in it, I wonder if it’s some proto-Objectivist saying from antiquity? Then copy and paste it into Google, and have a nice titillating laugh. It’s been called the dirtiest expression ever written in any language. If Marc K was actually offended, that makes me happy. Now I’ll be on the lookout for something even better.

I’m afraid I don’t find anything intelligent enough to merit rebuttal in Marc K’s material on Peikoff. He quotes from the retraction part of the podcast, but doesn’t address the new position Peikoff states towards the end, the part I transcribed and that we’ve been discussing. This calls to mind Rand’s statement about wishing she could find intelligent disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong please, Ninth, but I believe the Latin quote is there and perhaps used elsewhere for being found kind of funny, that so long ago and in a language and setting typically thought of as being very formal and proper, there's a record of this guy acting completely contrary to that in a way many people often seem to believe is somehow new, a recent degradation in people and society. It isn't meant very seriously at all.

While, especially today, there may be an element of the style you attribute to the phrase, in substance and in essence you are wrong. The phrase "I will sodomize you and face-fuck you" and the poem to which it is attributed were meant as abusive personal attacks which offended not only the persons attacked but, for the reasons you cite, the norms of the speakers of that language: civility, if you will.

Signature also may mean that it is a person putting a personal mark or style on something. [...] You are pinning WAY too much significance on this phrase, like it is an actual attempt at an argument.

The reason it is significant is for the reason I cited: this person wants to talk about civility. I never said or implied that he is attempting an argument, he isn't. Rather, as you note, this is his personal style, which is relevant to a discussion about civility and its degradation.

Also, not sure if you already had this in mind or not when you posted, but this quote, "Or did you just come here to ejaculate?

" <-- The word "ejaculate" also means (quoting from the dictionary that comes with my word processor) "exclaim something suddenly: to exclaim something suddenly and usually forcefully (literary)" Quite possibly the particular word choice was made out of amusement given the overall content of the thread, but the actual meaning intended was the one about speaking. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation here.)

I get that you want to defend his usage but I can only surmise that you don't want to consider his conduct in toto, either in this thread or the forum as a whole. For instance you give short shrift to your own usage of the word "also" without considering the implications. Also you apparently don't consider his comments to the other poster I cited. Nor do you consider his personal attacks on Peikoff which I cite. Nor do you consider his mischaracterization and misrepresentation of Peikoff's words. Nor do you consider his other attacks on Peikoff on this forum. Nor do you consider the people he sanctions. Nor do you consider his other postings on this forum.

I can only say that I am disappointed in your apparent naivete. As for whom you choose to defend, thank you, I am on notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, not sure if you already had this in mind or not when you posted, but this quote, "Or did you just come here to ejaculate?

" <-- The word "ejaculate" also means (quoting from the dictionary that comes with my word processor) "exclaim something suddenly: to exclaim something suddenly and usually forcefully (literary)" Quite possibly the particular word choice was made out of amusement given the overall content of the thread, but the actual meaning intended was the one about speaking. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation here.)

You’ll find that P.G. Wodehouse, probably the most G-rated writer for an adult audience, often used “ejaculated” to describe sudden exclamations, never with any sexual double meaning. Agatha Christie did the same. In my case, of course, I intended the double entendre, as you guessed. BTW I also agree with the other material in your post.

I just noticed this because Marc quoted you in his post. I spoke to nobody who could ever have a hope of getting an inside scoop on what Peikoff was planning, and don't know any such person anyway.

Remember the context of that statement: the original podcast was released February 6, then from the morning of February 8 to the evening of February 9 Peikoff’s website was down. It looked like we were going to get a more prompt retraction than we did. BTW, while we’re analyzing double entendres, I just want to mention that “throne” of course suggests a King, but, at least where I come from, “throne” also refers to a toilet. As in, while one takes a dump, they are “on the throne”. I hope this is enough to send Marc K into yet another fit of enraged apoplexy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I, and Trebor and I, have managed to engage in civil discussions in the past despite (possibly ongoing) disagreements, and I hope that can continue in the future.

Yes.

Here and now, however, you've seemingly cast aside the substance of Ninth Doctor's critique on the basis of who he is as a person. That is the very essence of "ad hominem" reasoning.

No. I address the issue of civility in the first part of my post, intellectual honesty in the middle and Peikoff's podcast at the end, all of which is relevant.

I went back and checked to see if I used any ad hominem and perhaps the words "cower" and "polluted" could be construed to be personal (though I consider them implications of what I had already demonstrated with evidence). The rest are his words and a discussion about civility and honesty.

Furthermore, it's possible that you have sought to tarnish me in the same attack, by referencing (but not naming) "another pontiff." (Though it's also possible you mean John Link, or someone else; I've certainly never called upon anyone to "recant" their previous positions.) In any event, this is not what we want our discussions to look like. Is it?

Frankly, I haven't read any of your posts until this one so I was not referring to you. And if you weren't "sneering", "prognosticating", "pontificating" or calling for recantations, then I'm not sure how you could think you were implicated.

As for the how the discussion looks: that was established before I arrived. Did you also see fit to speak to Ninth Doctor about his ad hominem attacks on other posters and Leonard Peikoff?

I completely disagree with this interpretation. Here is the portion which Ninth Doctor transcribed again:

Grames' interpretation is correct. Did you listen to the podcast? I quoted the appropriate parts above. You must take the podcast as a whole. In the parts I quote Peikoff lays the foundation and context for his later remarks and then he continues to reemphasize that context even in the later portions. For instance at 10:15 he says "She has a moral right to change her mind"

Taking people out of context produces a fallacious argument. It is the go-to strategy of not only Peikoff detractors but also Ayn Rand detractors throughout the years. Don't be taken in by such tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See above, he says that phrase was indeed meant to be humorous. Jokes can be made about things which, if they were meant seriously, would be awful, but because they are not meant to be taken seriously are not actually awful. Sure, it is a "dirty joke", but it isn't "playing dirty." There is not that hostility there which you seemed to think was intended. One need not remain very formal to carry on a decent discussion. You are getting quite worked up trying to fend off some perceived major personal attacks on yourself and some others, but that is not what has actually occurred. I figure if you see you are not under some big siege here that you can calm down, stress less and brighten your mood up some, be a little happier. I'm not interested in trying to defend some particular person here, I just really think you have been mistaken and that clearing such up would be of benefit to you and the conversation in this thread in general. An uninvolved third party's words I hoped would be more readily considered than you would those of somebody you are already angry at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it's possible that you have sought to tarnish me in the same attack, by referencing (but not naming) "another pontiff." (Though it's also possible you mean John Link, or someone else; I've certainly never called upon anyone to "recant" their previous positions.)

Well, I am a pontiff, and I did say something to the effect that those who defended LP's first date-rape podcast ought either to recant or to disagree with Peikoff's reversal. I am now hereby threatening any such person who does not take one of those two actions with excommunication from the Church of Either/Or.

Pope John Peter LIII

(fallen-away Catholic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See above, he says that phrase was indeed meant to be humorous. Jokes can be made about things which, if they were meant seriously, would be awful, but because they are not meant to be taken seriously are not actually awful. Sure, it is a "dirty joke", but it isn't "playing dirty." There is not that hostility there which you seemed to think was intended. One need not remain very formal to carry on a decent discussion.

All I can say is: you are wrong about him. There is enough evidence in this thread, and certainly on this forum to decide that a "decent discussion" cannot be had with this person. I have demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty in my original post, I have observed his conduct on this forum and I believe he is being dishonest about with you now.

You are getting quite worked up trying to fend off some perceived major personal attacks on yourself and some others, but that is not what has actually occurred. I figure if you see you are not under some big siege here that you can calm down, stress less and brighten your mood up some, be a little happier.

At the point of my original post in this thread I perceived no personal attack on myself. I did observe him attack others here and I observed him, and he admitted to, attacking Leonard Peikoff. Leonard Peikoff is a great value to me, almost as high as Ayn Rand and when my values are attacked, I get worked up, so should you. I also value this site and he has attacked its etiquette and rules.

I'm not interested in trying to defend some particular person here, I just really think you have been mistaken and that clearing such up would be of benefit to you and the conversation in this thread in general. An uninvolved third party's words I hoped would be more readily considered than you would those of somebody you are already angry at.

I appreciate the effort but it is wasted here. You can't always be friends, or even friendly, with everyone, sometimes you must choose sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am now hereby threatening any such person who does not take one of those two actions with excommunication from the Church of Either/Or.

In an offhanded way you suggested that LP didn't have the integrity to admit when he was wrong. Do you disavow your prognostications and admit you were wrong about what you sneeringly suggested LP would say? Or are you a hypocrite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames' interpretation about why once genital contact occurs and that is consented to, then anything beyond that point may be almost impossible to prove rape occurred, save for evidence of battery. So, in a legal sense, this much makes sense to me. I'm not going to pursue that line of discussion, because I'm not familiar enough with the law to say anything substantive. From a moral standpoint, though, why would genital contact be a point where consent can no longer be withdrawn? Peikoff did say the woman has a moral right to say no. I'm not talking about that. Confusion comes in when the proposed rational line seems to apply to non-legal contexts.

The bit mentioned about “monstrous evil” seemed to be the idea that upon hearing no, the whole situation becoming rape if continued further to any extent is the evil. His examples weren’t inherently forceful acts anyway, so that’s why it would be ridiculous to then scream “rape” if the other party said no in those contexts. Not that Peikoff even suggested continuing on is good, just that calling that rape is over the line, whether or not the law is involved.

As for the rational line of genital contact, the claim was that a “no” becomes invalid after that. Not legally invalid, but invalid unqualified. I have no explanation for this, unless the point was about legality and not morality per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the context of that statement: the original podcast was released February 6,... ...
You do not address the point I made: i.e. your own tin-hat assumptions of the way the Objectivist community works. As I've said earlier, you and Dwayne share a common epistemological approach even though you start with opposite premises.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not address the point I made: i.e. your own tin-hat assumptions of the way the Objectivist community works. As I've said earlier, you and Dwayne share a common epistemological approach even though you start with opposite premises.

Tin-hat assumptions? Look at what I wrote, “I read into” “a hint of inside information” ”he’d maybe communicated with someone”, how much more tentative could I be? To think that someone close to Peikoff, or even Peikoff himself, monitors this site is hardly in the tin-hat category. tin_hat_2.jpg

I don’t get the reference to Dwayne, maybe I missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an offhanded way you suggested that LP didn't have the integrity to admit when he was wrong. Do you disavow your prognostications and admit you were wrong about what you sneeringly suggested LP would say? Or are you a hypocrite?

Speaking ex cathedra, (after all, I am a pontiff, so I get do do that), I admit that I was surprised that Peikoff recanted to the extent that he did, and that therefore my prognostication was incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the Hitler business I want to make something absolutely clear. I don’t think Peikoff actively tries to foster what Rand called the “mentality that’s ready for a Führer”. I think some people come to Objectivism as part of the process of throwing off another idealogy, a religious one most often, and they fall into the pattern of bowing to hierarchy that they were familiar with before. There are cultist episodes in the history of the Objectivist “movement” to point to, and they originate in the time of Nathaniel Branden, so it’s not a Peikoff-specific thing. Hitler actively worked to build his cult, and was a genius in that way. To the extent Peikoff is a cult leader, it’s as Michael Shermer wrote, “the unlikeliest cult in history”.

Speaking ex cathedra, (after all, I am a pontiff, so I get do do that), I admit that I was surprised that Peikoff recanted to the extent that he did, and that therefore my prognostication was incorrect.

Just for the record, my position was that I couldn’t predict what his reply would be, nor even attach odds. I thought his original statement was obviously, blaringly wrong, but I felt the same way about his statements on the "Ground Zero Mosque" and transsexuals, and he hasn’t retracted those.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288705

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I address the issue of civility in the first part of my post, intellectual honesty in the middle and Peikoff's podcast at the end, all of which is relevant.

I went back and checked to see if I used any ad hominem and perhaps the words "cower" and "polluted" could be construed to be personal (though I consider them implications of what I had already demonstrated with evidence). The rest are his words and a discussion about civility and honesty.

Ah, I see. We might be talking at cross-purposes with the term "ad hominem." Let me explain what I mean. The issue under consideration is Peikoff's podcasts and his statements (or perhaps misstatements) on rape. When Ninth Doctor advocates a certain interpretation of Peikoff's statements, I think that it's appropriate to respond (should one choose to respond) to say that he's right or wrong on the merits of his argument, and the facts we have access to.

What I think is inappropriate (with respect to this kind of discussion generally) is to say -- as I believe you do -- that Ninth Doctor is not the kind of person who should be listened to, and that therefore his argument is faulty. This is "ad hominem"; not personal attacks or insults, per se, but a shift in the focus of discussion away from the arguments towards those who are making them. Drawing conclusions about the strength (or lack thereof) of a person's argument based upon the merits (or lack thereof) of the person advancing that argument.

Or in other words, now we're talking about whether Ninth Doctor is a sincere guy or not, or whether he intends his signature as an insult, or what his general opinion of Leonard Peikoff is, and etc., but Ninth Doctor's character is not the issue at hand. An evaluation of his character does nothing to establish whether Ninth Doctor is right or wrong in the arguments he makes, or help us to understand Peikoff's podcasts any better.

Frankly, I haven't read any of your posts until this one so I was not referring to you. And if you weren't "sneering", "prognosticating", "pontificating" or calling for recantations, then I'm not sure how you could think you were implicated.

I'll take you at your word. As to how I could think myself implicated, Ninth Doctor and myself have proposed very similar interpretations of Peikoff's message in this thread. If anything, I think he's been too lenient in his "sympathetic reading" of posts 253 and 256.

And while I sincerely hope that I avoid "sneering," I don't know whether I always succeed in conveying my intended tone. Nor do I know when I might be "pontificating" apart from merely arguing. If the meaning there is something like "coming across like a preachy ass," I'm afraid that it probably does describe me from time to time. :)

As for the how the discussion looks: that was established before I arrived.

That's a fair point. I came in partway too, and didn't really like what I saw. Perhaps that's just the nature of Internet discussion? I don't know what to say in response except that I have a vision of how I believe things could be, and how I think they ought to be. And while there will always be a certain element who seek to derail meaningful discussion and drag the level of discourse down, those who desire better shouldn't let their own contributions be defined by that lowest element.

Grames' interpretation is correct.

Well... therein lies our division. :)

Did you listen to the podcast?

I did.

I quoted the appropriate parts above. You must take the podcast as a whole. In the parts I quote Peikoff lays the foundation and context for his later remarks and then he continues to reemphasize that context even in the later portions. For instance at 10:15 he says "She has a moral right to change her mind"

I agree that everything must be interpreted according to the widest possible context, but I disagree that Peikoff maintaining (on the one hand) that a woman "has a moral right to change her mind" necessarily means that he thinks that a man must take her at her word if, in the midst of coitus, she starts telling him that she wants him to stop. I think he's allowing for the man to decide that she has already given "consent" for him to continue in the sexual act; that the "rational line" has been crossed. (He may judge her protestations as "not valid" in the face of her initially having allowed "genital connection" to have occurred.)

Taking people out of context produces a fallacious argument. It is the go-to strategy of not only Peikoff detractors but also Ayn Rand detractors throughout the years. Don't be taken in by such tactics.

I have no interest in taking people out of context. Nor am I any "detractor" from anyone, so far as I know. My only interest through all of this is arriving at the truth of things. And what I relay to you, through these posts, is the truth as best as I can recognize it. And should I be convinced through any agent, whether your arguments, or a further clarification from Peikoff, or etc., that I've been wrong on my interpretation of his statements, I promise that I'll say so with no fear of loss of ego or etc. I've never been afraid to be wrong in the past, or to admit my errors, and I won't start that now.

But for now? I think that Peikoff is advocating a species of rape, for the reasons I've already provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legal aspect was always redundant, to my mind. It evokes consequentialism,

a pragmatic "If you get away with it, great". By present laws.

Furthermore, as we know, by a system of individual rights (of the future)

what is moral, must also be rightful.

The moral issue remains: may a person continue to invade another's body

after withdrawal of consent? Obviously not. This has been well answered,

to my satisfaction, anyway.

It is not a question of doubting Leonard Peikoff's integrity - but we all

rush to rationalistic judgment sometimes, and regret it later, upon consideration.

He simply got confused, I think.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...