Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kira And Andrei

Rate this topic


intellectualammo

Recommended Posts

I basically have had a major disagreement with Evan in regards to a scene in We The Living that can be found starting on p.384, and a few other disagreements we have also had in regards to Kira and Andrei.

So I really think the best way to start this, is to say how I understand this scene, how I understand Kira and Andrei when they are together from the time she is seeking a way to pay for Leo‘s trip to the Crimea and on, and see if I can receive some replies from others to see if they agree or disagree with anything that I am going to type. Evan and I had a long series of replies to each other in a different post in regards to the aforementioned disagreements.

Okay, my basic overall general understanding of Kira and Andrei is this:

What Kira did to Andrei, CANNOT be considered prostitution, or an act of prostitution.

What Kira did to Andrei DOES NOT make her a prostitute, for even more added emphasis I repeat, she is NOT a prostitute.

Now, what I want to try to do with this is, is attempt to direct the potential replies in this way:

Does anyone disagree or agree with what I have said?

If so, or if not please try to explain as to why you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also will try to attempt to direct the potential replies in this way:

Since neither the word "prostitution" was used to describe what she did, nor was she ever called, or referred to as a "prostitute" in the novel in regards to her using Andrei, anyone who agrees that it was either "prostitution" or that she can be called a "prostitute" or both, would have to prove that, since that would be a positive claim of knowledge, not in the novel itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already addressed the argument about prostitute and whore in the debate that Steve and I had and it went TOTALLY unaddressed. I feel this argument is already addressed by a counter argument I provided.

Here is that argument:

Using the word "whore" instead of prostitute has ABSOLUTELY no relevance in the debate. The two words are SYNONYMS. They mean EXACTLY the same thing. The only thing different about them is their intended normative weight.Calling someone promiscuous and unclean MEANS (Semantically) the EXACT same thing as calling them a dirty slut. HOWEVER, there is a difference in word choice only when it comes to conveying that an insult is intended. Normative claims assert that something is good or bad, desirable or undesirable. They have VALUE applications. Descriptive claims do NOT make such assertions, they just state what IS. This is why some words/phrases seem academic, stuffy, boring, sterile, etc though they often have the same descriptive meaning as a more normative term. The purpose of academic writing isn't (at least generally) to convey emotion. It's purpose is primarily epistomological in nature...and that nature is supported by the efficiency of using words that convey descriptive stuff without the normative baggage.

On a descriptive level, whore and prostitute mean EXACTLY the same thing.

whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)

n.

A prostitute.

A person considered sexually promiscuous.

A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

See that? IN THE DEFINITION of whore, they use the word prostitute...I wonder why that is (sarcasm)? :rolleyes:

So how can it be logically important to use the two words as if they were different in meaningor demand that for the sake of debate that they be separate in their function?. They aren't. If you seriously consider this a substantive issue, answer just ONE question.

How can you be a whore WITHOUT being a prostitute? Is it possible to be a prostitute without being a whore? IF so, give me an example of how a woman could be a whore WITHOUT being a prostite. A real life concrete example.

Compare the defintions, please. If you cannot prove the relevance in the distinction that you claim is warranted, you MUST concede that logically the concepts and words are synonyms.

Because this is the STARTING place for such a debate, you must take into account this argument. In case some further elucidation is required....I offer the following defintion:

From M-W:

syn·o·nym

Pronunciation: 'si-n&-"nim

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synOnymon, from neuter of synOnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name -- more at NAME

1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

from Dictionary.com = syn·o·nym

n.

A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

If anyone TRULY wishes to debate that prostitute and whore are SYNONYMS, go to a thesaurus. If you don't know what that is....here is a definition.

the·sau·rus

Pronunciation: thi-'sor-&s

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural the·sau·ri /-'sor-"I, -"E/; or the·sau·rus·es /-'sor-&-s&z/

Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, treasure, collection, from Greek thEsauros

1 : TREASURY, STOREHOUSE

2 a : a book of words or of information about a particular field or set of concepts; especially : a book of words and their synonyms b : a list of subject headings or descriptors usually with a cross-reference system for use in the organization of a collection of documents for reference and retrieval

- the·sau·ral /-'sor-&l/ adjective

I suggest Merriam Webster's Online Thesaurus for this purpose. You can find it at www.refdesk.com.

Scroll down and on the left hand side you will see one look dictionary, M-W Dictionary, and M-W Thesaurus.

Put the word you want looked up in the little box and click "search." In fact...put the word "

If anyone wants to take the thesaurus challenge and find a thesaurus that doesn't list prostitute and whore as synonyms, PLEASE let me know. The reason I'm making such a big stink about synonyms is because synonyms (like whore and purpose) serve the same cognitive functions because they are words that have the same definition! If I said that Kira was angry when she yelled at Andrei and anyone comes forward saying, "Oh no...that isn't true. Ayn Rand never USED the word 'angry' in that book. The word she used in that passage was 'furious.'" should we really take that as serious as a grounds for debate? Are we really debating the significance in difference between being "angry" and "furious?" What is next....debating about the difference in word choice when it comes to "belicose" and "war-like?" Does such debate serve a cognitive or intelligble (or intelligent) function?

Here is a quote from Steve on the more general subject of We The Living...he quotes passages from the book:

Here on p. 384:

She says, "So I was the highest of women, a woman like a temple, like a military march, like a god's statue? Remember who told me that? Well look at me! I'm only a whore..."

*Kira finishes what Andrei is about to call her.

From the scene on p.384:

"Get out of here," he repeated.

She tore her hat off and flung it aside, she threw her coat off and dropped it to the floor. "Get out, you—"

"—whore?" she finished for him. "Certainly. I just want to be sure you know that that's what I am."

He asked: "What do you want? I have nothing to say to you."

*Leo says it as well when he says, "for some other whore."

From p.423:

He says, "And he was just tired of you, he probably wanted to get you off his hands, for some other whore."

IN STEVE'S OWN POST he admits that Kira, Leo, and Andrei (all of the RELEAVNT parties to the situation) ALL label Kira a whore!

Are they all liars? Are they all incapable of indenfying reality or making appropriate defintions? Whore and prostitute are synonyms. Do you think that Ayn Rand intended for Kira, Leo, and Andrei to labele Kira a whore INCRORRECTLY? Do you think that she intended them to be mistaken?

I see this debate as not needing to go forward at this point unless someone (Steve included) can make some intelligible argument about how the difference in prostitute and whore is metaphysically significant as a word choice.

It is only significant in the force with which it's use is intended to convey...but NOT in a definitional/descriptive realm.

I see Steve (or anyone else that accepts Steve's parameters) as needing to answer a couple of questions:

1) Why is the difference between whore/prostitute important AT ALL?

2) Since they are synonyms and Kira, Leo, Andrei use the synonym to describe Kira as a whore....are they simply mistaken, deluded, evasive, stupid, or incapable of making a relatively simple definitional identification?

3) If Kira was evasive or just mind numbingly stupid...how could she be a Rand heroine?

I agree with Steve's original assesment that Kira is an even better Rand heroine that Dagny or Dominique.

How could he hold that belief if he can't even make the judgement that Kira was smart AND intellectually honest enough to make the RIGHT label and apply it to herself?

Do you think Rand intended Kira to make an error of knowledge (just not being smart enough or careful enough to chose the RIGHT word for the situation) or an error of morality (evading the fact that she wasn't "really" a prostitute as Steve claims)? If so...what indicates THAT?

Until these questions are answered, I'm bowing out of the debate because unless they are answered, Steve's propositions remain fuzzy and uncear and fail to serve any constructive purpose at this point. Arguments need justification and currently the proposition that "whore and prostitute need to be treated as separate concepts because Ayn Rand picked the option of using one over the other" is woefully unsupported or justified.

In retrospect...by looking over the other thread in which this was justified, it isn't at all unclear anymore why the gap between agreement and understanding widened on both ends. Arguments are bridges between understanding. When they go unrefuted or unaddressed...they don't serve constructive purposes anymore and words become more and more like winds pushing people farther and farther from understanding. Debate is like an intellectual jog. If two parties expect to do it well...they must keep up with the other's pace. The more arguments are dropped...the less intellectual benefit is gained to either party.

I urge anyone who reads this thread to keep that in mind.

-E

Edited by Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the word "whore" instead of prostitute has ABSOLUTELY no relevance in the debate. The two words are SYNONYMS.

On a descriptive level, whore and prostitute mean EXACTLY the same thing.

From M-W:

syn·o·nym

Pronunciation: 'si-n&-"nim

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synOnymon, from neuter of synOnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name -- more at NAME

1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

Evan the entire discussion/debate has only arisen, because you are the only one who has described it as "prostitution" and that Kira is a, as you continually say, "prostitute", inside the context of the novel.

It has ABSOLUTE relevance.

You apparently used the word "prostitute", because "whore" and "prostitute" are listed as being synonyms, but by your definition of "synonym" that I have quoted above, synonyms can have "nearly" the same meaning....in "some" or "all senses". That being so, we have to look at the sense it was in the novel. "Whore" and "prostitute" are not the "same" in the context of the novel. For one, the word "prostitute" never made it onto any of the pages of the novel, neither did "prostitution", but "street woman" and "whore" definately did make their appearances in the novel. The "street women" in the novel, in the sense that they are used in the novel, are more indiscriminate, they recieve money directly, they advertise, or solicit their services, and both parties know explicitly of what is actually taking place.

A whore in the novel, in the sense used in the novel, that is used to describe Kira, and she is also self-described as, is NOT synonymous with the word, "prostitute" in which Evan is calling Kira.

1. No one calls what she did in the novel, "prostitution", and neither do they call her a "prostitute" ONLY "whore" (as I have quoted before, ALL of them using the word "whore" and NONE of them using the

word "prostitute")

2. Andrei had absolutely no idea that Kira had lied to him by saying that she loves him, then the two have sex, and then the money he gave her, he gave to her NOT FOR THE SEX THEY HAD JUST HAD, but because she "mentioned her family", so Andrei did not directly pay for sex at all.

3. Kira was not like the other "street woman" as described in the novel. This is the only way that they are described in the novel in the sense of the novel as well...And I quote, "She saw women with lips painted scarlet on faces powdered snow-white, with <wtl_52> red kerchiefs and short skirts, and legs squeezed by high shoes laced too tightly. She saw a man taking a woman's arm and disappearing through a glass door." p.51-2 So Kira is very clearly here, NOT a "street woman". So in the novel, in the sense of the novel, you can't even say that a "street woman" and a "whore" are synonyms, let alone introduce a "foreign" word(a word outside the novel, never used once) such as "prostitute" and say that to describe her. In the "sense" of the novel, and that synonyms can "nearly" mean the "same", you cannot introduce that word to describe her at all, Evan. I would say, at best, you would be *nearer* in describing the "street woman" as "prostitutes" or that they are, at best, closer synonyms than describing Kira as aledgedly being one.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"IntellectualAmmo", How would you define or describe the two different concepts: prostitute and whore? Perhaps if you were to describe what you mean by each term and how they are different, that could be a starting point to cross-check if Kira's actions would qualify as one or the other or none.

(On a separate note, isn't this also being discussed in the other thread? Does this thread have a distinctly different focus?)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"IntellectualAmmo", How would you define or describe the two different concepts: prostitute and whore? Perhaps if you were to describe what you mean by each term and how they are different, that could be a starting point to cross-check if Kira's actions would qualify as one or the other or none.

I don't really think that I have to, (not implying that you have said that I have too). I went inside the context of the novel, and by describing how a "street woman" is so very different from Kira, that I don't really think I would even consider trying to define what I would define as being a "prostitute" and/or a "whore". I will say this: When prostitution does takes place, there is NO DOUBT a PROSTITUTE is involved. When a woman lies to another that she loves them, then has sex with them, to keep them from avoiding her, and afterwards the mere mentioning of her family gets her monetary handouts, and the man does not know that he is being lied to and used, they are DEFINATELY a whore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now I understand the distinction you're making. Even though you haven't defined it, your description shows what you're speaking of: one is a more regular and indiscriminate offender than the other. It the same as the difference between a con-man and an occassional liar. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now I understand the distinction you're making.

Yes!!, thank you, I thought a distinction was clear in the context of the novel.

one is a more regular and indiscriminate offender than the other.

I definately would agree with that. It was hard for me to explain just what a "street woman" does, it wasn't exactly explicitly stated in the novel itself, but implied. What you said and what I typed above pretty much sum up all we can gather about the "street women" in the novel.

It the same as the difference between a con-man and an occassional liar. Correct?

YES!!!! Close in differences like those between them, yes!!, for the most part. "Liar" and "con man" are synonyms as well, (at least I found "liar" as having "con man" listed as a synonym) and they DO NOT have to have EXACTLY the same meaning either. It would, and can only be determined by the "sense" both are used in, in a particular context.

Thanks, softwareNERD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IntellectualAmmo:

You apparently used the word "prostitute", because "whore" and "prostitute" are listed as being synonyms, but by your definition of "synonym" that I have quoted above, synonyms can have "nearly" the same meaning....in "some" or "all senses".
Some or ALL senses.That definition is NOT an excuse to say, "Well we can't know which type of synonym we are using so we need to look at random arbitrary crap." By the definition of synonym that you just quoted back to me, for a synonym to be a synonym the meaning has to be the same in some OR all senses. One OR the other.

HERE are the definitions of prostitute and whore side by side:

prostitute

Function: noun

1 a : a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money : WHORE

whore

Function: noun

1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

THEY ARE EXACTLY the same except that whore has a more normative connotation (which I have said all along).You tell me what the big time differences are definitionally speaking. Moreover, if they cannot be used interchangeably because they are the SAME...why is the word "prostitute" found in the definition of "whore" and VICE VERSA? The meanings of each word ARE THE SAME in ALL senses.

You are making the positive assertion that there is a distinction between the two despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thus, YOU have the burden of proof on this one. I have been extremely clear in providing definitions that narrow the context of what we are dealing with. It is your turn now. You repeatedly evade my attempts (and Softwarenerd's) to get you to DEFINE what the supposed distinctions are. You are the one saying that there supposedly IS a distinction despite really obvious and clear definitions where even the dictionary uses the word INTERCHANGABLY. Thus, YOU have to show the difference between the two if you are going to keep making that assertion.

Otherwise you are being a pretty damn big subjectivist by saying what is tantamount to, "I can't provide any counter-definitions or argue with what the definitions clearly say...but there is a distinction between whore and prostitute! I refuse to show what the differences are, but I know the difference when I see it!"

Kind of like

In fact...here is your quote that looks kind of similar to the caricature of your arguments that I just made:

I don't really think that I have to [define the difference between whore and prostitute]. I went inside the context of the novel, and by describing how a "street woman" is so very different from Kira, that I don't really think I would even consider trying to define what I would define as being a "prostitute" and/or a "whore". I will say this: When prostitution does takes place, there is NO DOUBT a PROSTITUTE is involved. When a woman lies to another that she loves them, then has sex with them, to keep them from avoiding her, and afterwards the mere mentioning of her family gets her monetary handouts, and the man does not know that he is being lied to and used, they are DEFINATELY a whore

In fact....here is an exchange from Atlas Shrugged that looks remarkably similar as well:

(right after 'Frisco's speak on the nature of money- page 385 in the 35th Anniversary Edition paperback)

"Senor d' Anconia," declared the woman with the earrings, "I don't agree with you!"

"If you can refute a single sentence I uttered, madame, I shall hear it gratefully."

"Oh I can't answer you. I don't have any answers, my mind doesn't work that way but I don’t' feel that you're right, so I know that you are wrong."

"How do you know it?"

"I feel it. I don't go by my head but by my heart. You might be good at logic but you're heartless."

I don't think that is your intention here to be vague and undefined (at least I hope it isn't) so BE MORE CLEAR. You tell US what the difference is since you are claiming that there is one.

I would also like to note that if you look at the definition of prostitute or whore, NEITHER definition makes ANY mention of whether or not the man knows that he is being manipulated or knowingly makes a business deal. Legally the act of prostitution and soliciting a prostitute are SEPARATE crimes. A woman could be guilty of prostitution without a guy being guilty of soliciting a prostitute. The law separates the two and the definitions make no mention of "knowledge" being necessary for an act of prostitution to occur.

For one, the word "prostitute" never made it onto any of the pages of the novel, neither did "prostitution", but "street woman" and "whore" definitely did make their appearances in the novel. The "street women" in the novel, in the sense that they are used in the novel, are more indiscriminate, they receive money directly, they advertise, or solicit their services, and both parties know explicitly of what is actually taking place.Kira was not like the other "street woman" as described in the novel. This is the only way that they are described in the novel in the sense of the novel as well...And I quote, "She saw women with lips painted scarlet on faces powdered snow-white, with <wtl_52> red kerchiefs and short skirts, and legs squeezed by high shoes laced too tightly. She saw a man taking a woman's arm and disappearing through a glass door." p.51-2 So Kira is very clearly here, NOT a "street woman". So in the novel, in the sense of the novel, you can't even say that a "street woman" and a "whore" are synonyms,

Holy tomatoes, Batman! We are getting off topic here!

1) Street walker and whore ARE synonyms. Look it up.

2) The REASON why street-walker and whore are synonyms is because their meaning is similar in SOME (but not all) senses unlike prostitute and whore which are the same in ALL senses.

Being a street walker is a type of prostitution/whoring just like being a call girl is a type of prostitution.

I never claimed Kira was a street walker, call girl, or any professional class of prostitute.

If a woman offers to have sex with somebody she knows personally in exchange for money, that doesn't make her any less of a prostitute despite the fact that she isn't a career hooker. Whether or not a street walker is more or less indiscriminate than a call girl or a girl who only sells herself ONCE is absolutely irrelevant in the context of this debate.

3) Whether or not the men know that they are being used or know that they are making a business deal is once again IRRELEVANT. It isn't mentioned in the definitions of prostitute or whore thus YOU are going outside of the definitions to try to prove that Kira was not a prostitute.

How can you prove that Kira was or wasn't a prostitute if you look outside of the definitions? That is tantamount to defining words as, "whatever we feel like." That IS subjectivism, that IS the enshrinement of the arbitrary. Take a good look at what you are doing, Steve.

A whore in the novel, in the sense used in the novel, that is used to describe Kira, and she is also self-described as, is NOT synonymous with the word, "prostitute" in which Evan is calling Kira.
WTF?

I'm calling Kira a prostitute/whore in the DEFINITIONAL sense. If the novel defines prostitution/whoring in some other way...then I would sure like to see some proof for that.

PROVE that Ayn Rand wanted us to understand the word "whore" as something OTHER than what the dictionary defines it. Did she provide an alternative or counter-definition?

You have a pretty high burden of proof here, Steve. Once again, you make another unjustified, unproven, and arbitrary assertion. If you are going to say that we need to understand the word "whore" outside of the literal definition of the word, you have to explain WHY we need to do that. Does anything in the novel or in Ayn Rand's works make such a claim or support such a justification?

2. Andrei had absolutely no idea that Kira had lied to him by saying that she loves him, then the two have sex, and then the money he gave her, he gave to her NOT FOR THE SEX THEY HAD JUST HAD, but because she "mentioned her family", so Andrei did not directly pay for sex at all.

FOR THE 50 MILLIONTH TIME:

WHETHER OR NOT A MAN ACTIVELY SOLICITS A PROSTITUTE IS IRRELEVANT WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER A WOMAN IS A PROSTITUTE OR NOT.

LOOK TO THE DEFINITION OF PROSTITUTE. DOES IT SAY THAT A MAN HAS TO EXPLICITLY KNOW THAT HE IS PAYING FOR SEX? NO. IT DOESN'T. IT JUST SAYS THAT A PROSTITUTE IS A WOMAN THAT HAS SEX IN ORDER TO RECEIVE MONEY. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT SHE HAS TO BE HONEST IN THAT PURSUIT. QUIT STEPPING OUTSIDE OF THE DEFINITIONS HERE OR ELSE I'M GOING TO GROW HORNS, WINGS, A TAIL, AND BURN DOWNA SMALL VILLIAGE IN A FIT OF RAGE!!!! (joking on that last part)

I definitely would agree with that. It was hard for me to explain just what a "street woman" does, it wasn't exactly explicitly stated in the novel itself, but implied.
That is why we have dictionaries and definitions. If we didn't...then Ayn Rand (or any novelist) would have to define EVERY word used in a book to specify EXACTLY what they mean. Ayn Rand doesn't explicitly give us a definition of "street walker" because we are supposed to be smart enough to look up the definition if we have confusion. I don't think that is a really tough burden. Just because something is "hard to explain" isn't a justification for shirking the intellectual responsibility of seeking clarity through strict definitions when the author doesn't hold your hand by giving you a dictionary definition.

YES!!!! Close in differences like those between them, yes!!, for the most part. "Liar" and "con man" are synonyms as well, (at least I found "liar" as having "con man" listed as a synonym) and they DO NOT have to have EXACTLY the same meaning either.

Synonyms don't HAVE to be exact in ALL ways. They either have to have the same meanings in ALL senses OR in SOME senses. Look at the definition. "Liar" and "con-man" have the same meaning in SOME ways (both practice deception) but not in ALL senses.

A prostitute and whore are synonyms that have the same meaning in ALL senses and that can be proven by looking at the definitions side by side in this VERY post. Thus, your approximation of the group "con man and liar" to "whore and prostitute" is unwarranted and BAD.

It would, and can only be determined by the "sense" both are used in, in a particular context.
To determine (in a novel) whether or not someone is a con-man or a liar (you admit that there are similarities as WELL as differences) you have to look to the novel and see what the person that is being accused DID. If you say that Joe is a con-man and I say that he is a liar...we have to look at what Joe DID and then we need to look at the definitions. I urge you to use the same process.

Softwarenerd:

Okay, now I understand the distinction you're making. Even though you haven't defined it, your description shows what you're speaking of: one is a more regular and indiscriminate offender than the other. It the same as the difference between a con-man and an occasional liar. Correct?

Steve is trying to draw a distinction between a career prostitute and a one time offender. No such distinction is needed or necessary because I never CLAIMED Kira sold herself routinely as a career prostitute. Whether or not Kira is a "regular" prostitute is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that Kira was a "regular" prostitute or was MORE or LESS indiscriminate than a career prostitute.

I simply said that whoring/prostitution are the same terms and by the definitions...Kira definitely prostituted herself out. Plain and simple. You were right in initially asking Steve to define his terms. More importantly....Kira, Andrei, and Leo ALL labeled Kira as a whore.

Were they incorrect in their definitions and did Ayn Rand intend them to be incorrect?

I posit that they were all correct and that Ayn Rand intended us to believe that Kira had indeed whored herself out to Andrei as a way of showing just how crappy life was under the Soviet Union. A woman shouldn't have whoring as her only option when it comes to protecting her values. THAT was the tragedy.

To deny that it was prostitution is silly and takes away from the purpose that such prostitution had to furthering the novel's theme.

Edited by Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

random arbitrary crap.

I should have not read the rest of your reply after that comment.

You are making the positive assertion that there is a distinction between the two despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thus, YOU have the burden of proof on this one.

Evan, I was not making the distinction between "whore" and "prostitute", but between "street woman" and "whore" in the novel. That is what you have to do. Read what I wrote above to softwareNERD, the very post you are referring to here.

Thus, YOU have to show the difference between the two if you are going to keep making that assertion.

I was not only making the assertion, but demonstrated by using quotes form the novel, that there is a clear distiction between a "street woman" and a "whore" in the novel, again not between "whore" and the word you used, "prostitute".

Otherwise you are being a pretty damn big subjectivist

No Evan, since I was typing about the novels descriptions of a "whore" and "street woman to softwareNERD, and not "whore" and "prostitute".

Holy tomatoes, Batman!

????

WTF?

Evan take a look at what you are doing. I think that the moderator will definately be notified of this post.

You have a pretty high burden of proof here, Steve.

I have no burden, just as always.

FOR THE 50 MILLIONTH TIME:

Yeah, this is another reason to notify the moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate has descended into uselessness. Bring in the moderators. Bring in everyone on Obectivismonline.net if you wish to look at this thread.It doesn't change the fact that I made cogent arguments to EVER ONE of your points and that you failed to address any of them in any relevant fashion

Ideas function in the marketplace of ideas. The worth of my arguments (and your lack of arguments) will be determined by anyone who comes and reads this forum. In terms of clarity, I highly doubt that my post will be deemed to have less value than yours which descends into the realm of subjectivist whim and arbitrary nonsense.

I initially thought that you (Steve) came here to learn and I have posted time and time again. Eventually you just quit responding to arguments and stubbornly keep positing the same stuff. Saying the same bad argument many times in a row without addressing points made by another member does NOT change the fact that it is a bad argument to begin with nor does it contribute to discussion or learning (for you or anyone else).

I have rephrased my arguments in attempts to make them as easily digestible as possible.

Why did I do this? Why did I waste my time (as it is become clear that I did indeed waste my time).

Because of what you said on This thread

As a side note, I have been striving and struggling with reading comprehension, as in being able to communicate and understand fully what I have read. What I am going to do now, when I don't understand something completely or have only an *approximate* understanding, I want to do what I can to achieve full understanding. And that may involve me asking questions here, letting go of inhibitions somewhat to be able to do that. I never really learned properly reading comprehension methods/techniques, so that part isn't all my fault("comprachico's of the mind" ), but it will be if I don't do something about it when I can and know of the slight problems existence. Vague approximations, when I discover them, or find them, I am determined to eliminate them. You helped with a recent one. Thanks again. You can't be able to promote a philosophy, like Objectivism, properly if you have such vague approximations. It doesn't at all make for good conversation, good arguments, and so forth.
That is YOUR own quote. Yet, you keep insisting on the same vague approximations in this very debate and you decide to go to a mod because I finally got frustrated after repeating the same arguments a bajillion times that went undressed the FIRST time. Well cry me a frickin' river. Do you want an apology for saying "WTF?" after responding to the same bad arguments numerous times?

"WTF?" was used to indicate my utter horro and profound confusion at you routinely attempting to compare dissimilar conceptual units (words) in an unintelligble manner. WTF is a vulgar phrase (much like the word "whore") and it's purpose was to convey the DEGREE to which I was horrified. I believe that my frustration and horror were justified and justified to the degree that I indicated with said vulgarity. The word conveyed it's intended function, meaning, and proper use given the context. For that, I am NOT sorry, nor should I be. Am I sorry that I used all caps and boldface to highlight (explicitly) the fact that I was annoyed with the same bad rehashed arguments? No, I'm not. Was the phrase "50 millionth" an expression of hyperbole? Yes...yes it was. If you don't know what that means, look it up. Am I sorry that I jokingly said that such bad arguments in another post would turn me into an angry fictional creature (a dragon) that would destroy a small villiage? No, I'm NOT sorry that I made that joke. Call the humor police and sue me. Sheesh. The debate was going nowhere anyways. It isn't like I detracted from the at that point non-existent debate.

I'm NOT sorry that I got frusterated with this interaction. When the mod comes in, why don't you point him to the old thread so he can see how the debate went absolutely nowhere over there as well? Perhaps they can see how you avoided arguments over there as well? See, I figured that when you switched threads you might keep some of the context provided by the original debate. If you had confusion due to a "widening gap" (your words) then your confusion stems from specifics unique to the original debate. Perhaps by seeing the first thread and this one both then they might realize how damn patient I have been. I'm NOT sorry that I have been explicitly clear in pointing out EXACTLY where your arguments have gaping holes.Everybody has their limits and at some point you throw up your hands. Perhaps they can see how you routinely praise me for my patience, argumentation, etc (not like that can be trusted necessarily due to your comprehension issues...but whatever) and how you called in a mod when you got unhappy with the implications of what I said?

Some things are complex by their very nature...I understand that. If you just can't "get" the arguments that I'm making right now...odds are you will have a reasonably hard time in this forum. I suggest you take a class on reading comprehension before you dive headfirst into a debate while insisting you are right to the exclusion of the arguments (which is what happens when you refuse to answer arguments and just keep repeating what you have said again and again). I don't think you are a bad guy, just misguided. If you can't handle the debate...watch other people do it for a while or perhaps take a class. Go to toastmasters or a place like Sylvan Learning Center. There is NO reason why a reasonably intelligent person like yourself shouldn't be able to debate or engage in meaningful discussion if you have the right tools. If you don't have the right tools (like shady reading comprehension) then you need to GET the tools.

If you can't read very well how are you going to digest and respond to arguments? Language and reading ARE tools of communication. If you can't communicate, how can you (or anyone else) get anything meaningful out of a discussion that is vague, fuzzy, and imprecise due to the fact that you have comprehension issues on a very basic language level?

How can you be expected to debate effectively? I got fed up with you when you quit asking questions or responding but instead decided to assert your positions as truth while simply ignoring the questions or arguments offered in return. We engaged each other in debate and you kept up reasonably well for a while which is why I didn't find it useless to continue talking to you within a debate context.

You seemed capable of responding or at least offering reasonably relevant counter-questions/arguments. Then all of a sudden we hit an impenetrable brick wall.

I'm trying to be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt by blaming this on reading comprehension issues that you labeled in an earlier thread. The "not so nice" explanation is that you aren't interested in learning/discussion at all and you are practicing some form of subjectivism/whim worship.

I think if someone wanted to make that argument, it wouldn't be relatively hard considering your utter lack of concern for definitions or distinctions. You utterly REJECT the need for you to clarify a position with definitions when you claim that there is a supposed difference between two words (whore and prostitute). This has to be explained somehow. Go ahead and bring in the mod. Let them decide which one you are iIn need of more education or a whim worshipping subjectivist). I think it is pretty damn clear that I place a premium on precision, argumentation, and clarity. After all...I was the only one in the entire course of the thread who even OFFERED a definition. Let all who read this thread be the judge of these inescapable facts. Mod or not, the truth is what it is.

by the way...here is an excerpt from the forum rules:

(2) This forum will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include: (a) sarcastic comments directed at a particular person's character, and (;) accusations of irrationality or immorality.

I never insulted you. I never called you stupid, dumb, ugly, or morally bankrupt. I never suggested that you were irrational. I DID say that such a case would be possible to make based on your vagueness, however I actually have given you the benefit of the doubt numerous times and suggested that you be MORE clear (or go take reading comprehension classes) so that way you didn't give the perhaps mistaken appearance that you were irrational.

I also never made any sarcastic comments towards your character, nor did I call you immoral. I DID say that your arguments were becoming tantamout to subjectivism...but that could be due to an error of knowledge and not morality. So I could hardly be construed as accusing you of being immoral.

also:

Likewise, all posts must add to the discussion rather than merely express agreement or disagreement without explaining the writer's reasons.

If I would have known that was part of the forum rules, I would have sought a moderator myself. Perhaps (assuming a moderator is reading this) they can take the appropriate actions since they are already here?

I think it is pretty obvious that your last posts have expressed disagreement without stating any objective justifications or reasons. I think it is pretty obvious that some pretty important arguments went COMPLETELY unaddressed and that directly lead to this debate being devoid of intellectual content at some point (which is indeed against the forum rules as it says that posts devoid of intellectual content are not to be tolerated.

-Evan

Edited by Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not only making the assertion, but demonstrated by using quotes form the novel, that there is a clear distiction between a "street woman" and a "whore" in the novel, again not between "whore" and the word you used, "prostitute".

Here is what this debate boils down to:

Topic: "What Kira did was prostitution and she can be considered to have been a prostitute when she had sex with Andrei"

Steve: Not true. The book uses whore and not prostitute.

Evan : Prostitute and whore are synonyms with the EXACT same meaning.

Steve : "street woman" and "whore" don't have the same meaning. The word prostitute was never used in the book.

Evan : That doesn't matter. Prostitute and whore have the exact same meanings. They can be used interchangably. It doesn't matter which one is found in the novel because they both mean the same thing. You really need to define why you see the word "whore" as separate and distinct from the word "prostitute."

Steve: I can't imagine doing that. When you see prostitution you definitely know it because it is obvious and because the guy explicity needs to solicit the woman.

Evan : but wait...the definition of prostitute and whore never say that the guy needs to know what is going on...they just say that the woman has sex for money...not what means she uses to get money (an explicit business transaction versus manipulation). So why do you keep insisting on saying that a guy has to know he is buying a prostitute for a woman to BE a prostitute? The act of soliciting a prostitute is separate and distinct from the act of prostitution itself under the law and by defintion. Why do you keep avoiding distinguishing whore and prostitute? If there isn't any difference between the words...we can go home and know that Kira DID prostitute herself out. By your own quotations from the book, Kira, Andrei, and Leo ALL label Kira a whore which I claim is interchangable with the term "prostitute" based on the side by side comparisons of the defintion. Unless Kira, Leo, and Andrei were WRONG to label Kira a whore....then we can go home because the debate is finished. I have proven my point. Do you think that Ayn Rand meant us to come to the conclusion that Kira, Leo, and Andrei were all WRONG when they all called Kira a whore? IF SO, what is your proof? Does she say that in any of her non-fiction or in We The Living?

Steve: No response.

If you were to hypothetically continue the debate, you would have 3 potential ways you could debate the correctness of what I have said.

You could argue that:

1) There isn't a distinction between the terms "whore" and "prostitute" and you concede the debate because I proved that Kira's actions were acts of prostitution and thus, she was a prostitute when she committed those actions (regardless of whether or not she was a career-prostitute like a street walker...which I have proven to be irrelevant)which settles the ORIGINAL question of whether or not Kira was a prostitute when she had sex with Andrei.

2) There isn't a distinction between the terms "whore" and "prostitute"...however...the characters that used the term "whore" did so INCORRECTLY. Ayn Rand must have meant them to be incorrect in their defintions. Or perhaps she didn't know the correct defintion herself and made a bad word choice.

(if you took this option, you would have a really heavy burden of proof because at that point you have to either prove that Ayn Rand didn't know the defintion of a word she had her characters used or she intended us to discount what the characters said for some mysterious as of yet unknown reason.)

3) There IS a distinction between the words "prostitute" and "whore".

(this would need to be proven with some analysis or a counter defintion)

However, you didn't respond AT ALL and I got frusterated. You just repeated the same arguments I had already responded to and when I pointed that out in a frusterated manner, you threaten to call in a mod because somehow I'm the bad guy (despite being enormously patient with you).

Edited by Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, folks, I'm closing this thread for now, since it's degenerated into nonsense.

Evan, a quick hint: people don't consider dictionary definitions proof of any proposition, no matter how obvious or stupid. If you press them, they'll just insist that dictionaries aren't objective. Learned THAT one the hard way, myself.

Steve, what the heck difference does it make whether Kira was a prostitute or a whore, anyway? Your entire complaint boils down to the fact that you wouldn't use that word. Well I wouldn't call a jelly donut a berlinner, myself, but it don't mean diddly squat. And, if someone else does, I know what they meant, even though I think the term is silly or obnoxious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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