Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

Rate this topic


ggdwill

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes mrocktor, and I would add that the desire for the right to not percieve that which offends you is highly IRRATIONAL in that wanting to control your perceptions is metaphysical rebellion through epistemological denial which is the refusal to see, the refusal to think, the refusal to KNOW.

Well JASKN, do you see now why I continue to ignore mrocktor? He's saying nothing new, just repeating the same old nonsense about being offended. Not exactly my idea of "excellent."

IAmMetaphysical - So you agree with mrocktor that I am advocating a "right not to be offended" ? If I do that, that makes me highly irrational, as you said, doesn't it? So why are you continuing this debate with me? When somebody's irrational, you can't have a logical conversation with him; the only thing you can do is what I did to mrocktor: ignore him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF: I think you are advocating a "right to not have to see that which one doesn't want to see" and you think that it is ok to force others to provide it for you. I think this is wrong, and I think the "desire to not see" is irrational. I think that you are rational and have simply made an error in your thinking and if shown you will change that error. I may be wrong, and there really isn't much more I can say on the subject so I think it will just take some more thinking on your part.

P.S. I don't think its advantageous to ignore mrocktor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF: I think you are advocating a "right to not have to see that which one doesn't want to see"

What I am advocating implies not having to see some things you don't want to see. Every right has such implications. For example, your rights to property and physical integrity imply that you don't have to see me pointing a gun at you and hear me demanding your credit card. You'll certainly agree that it wouldn't be valid to argue: "You don't have such a right because it involves a perception of reality (seeing my gun, hearing me say things) and there can be no rights protecting you from the perception of reality."

What such an argument ignores is that the "reality" in question exists as a result of my choice. The gun pointing at you and the demands are a part of reality because I've decided to make them a part of reality. They are a man-made reality, not metaphysically given.

And the reason you have a right not to perceive such a reality is not that you have a right not to perceive things you don't want; the reason is that this kind of man-made reality "stands in your way" in your pursuit of a rational life.

Do you agree so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perception of the robber is not what makes robbery a crime

You're making progress! Now, I know this is going to shock you, but--hold on tight!--this same principle can be applied to exposure as well. Perception of Clinton is not what makes exposure a crime; forcing Miss Jones to experience a sexual activity against her judgment is.

Of course, the perception of Clinton is the same thing as experiencing a sexual activity. Just like perception of the robber is the same thing as being forced to hand over your credit card. But mrocktor will continue to evade this, so his place on my ignore list is safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm evading, not the guy screaming "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you" while he covers his ears (metaphorically speaking).

This stands:

The state of one's body is metaphysical fact, so is the state of one's mind. The state of one's mind though is subject to one's volition. Perception is metaphysical, the consequences of perception are man made - by the one who perceives, specifically.

If some percept disturbs you - that is your own "fault" (scare quotes because that may be the proper reaction). No one is obliged to know your mental framework and screen existence so you don't perceive that which you don't like, or want, to perceive. Arguing otherwise is arguing a right not to be offended because being offended is the reaction to a percept you do not like.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also customary on this forum to give more than assertions, so as to enable others to have something to disprove, you are the one with the onus.

Of course, the perception of Clinton is the same thing as experiencing a sexual activity

A sexual activity is something closely related to sex. Clinton was in a state closely related to sex; specifically, in a state implying that he and Miss Jones were lovers, and were about to have sex. Therefore, Miss Jones's perception of Clinton in this state was something closely related to sex--i.e., a sexual activity.

Just like perception of the robber is the same thing as being forced to hand over your credit card

The robber's appearance and behavior implies that you must hand over your credit card if you want to stay alive. Therefore, your perception of the robber makes you hand over your credit card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The robber's appearance and behavior implies that you must hand over your credit card if you want to stay alive. Therefore, your perception of the robber makes you hand over your credit card.

Perception does not create reality or morality. It is not your perception of the robber that makes you comply, it's your perception that enables you to gain all the facts you can use to make a decision to comply or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Lathanar. This is total primacy of consciousness and that is why I am no longer engaged in this discussion. I was under the impression that there was merely a mistake or confusion going on here, but it is more fundamental than just political application of Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. I thought I had something to learn about the nature of rights, as was his illuminating analogy of the distance runner on a track in another thread, but alas there is nothing to be learned from this, except to reinforce the fact that political disagreements reveal only more fundamental disagreements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. The state of one's body is metaphysical fact, so is the state of one's mind. The state of one's mind though is subject to one's volition. Perception is metaphysical, the consequences of perception are man made - by the one who perceives, specifically.
(bold emphasis mine)

I did not read the thread, but just want to comment about this: What do you mean by "state of one's mind"?

Volition does not allow man total control of the contents of his thoughts, when by "thoughts" I am referring to a very broad concept, uniting everything you experience.

For example: if someone speaks a language you know, you have no choice about understanding the meaning of the words. You can try it: but as much as you'd want to, unless you cover your ears, once you hear something you have no choice about associating the sound with your concept of it.

Your volition will also not be able to stop your brain from associating meaning to shapes when your eyes are open. Some things in the brain happen automatically and you have no control over them.

Consider the following case: you are driving, when all of a sudden the person next to you yells something in surprise. This startles you and you press on the gas pedal and make an accident.

You might say that since this man has volition, he should have stooped his mind from being startled by the sharp change in sound intensity, but I think that in this case, your brain is causing the startled reaction automatically because of rapid change in environment.

Volition is not omnipotent: it has a nature and boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now see that IAmMetaphysical was right when he wrote this:

P.S. I don't think its advantageous to ignore mrocktor.

So far, I have recused myself from this discussion as a moderator, but when people start flinging around posts that are this mendacious:

Furthermore, should Capitalism Forever wish to continuing arguing that one can force a mind and that one's rights can be violated by perception of reality, that he should do so in the Debate Forum - which is the proper venue for defending ideas contrary to Objectivism.

then it is really time to swing into action. Contrary to Objectivism?? When I am the one defending Ayn Rand's position?? Gotta grant him one thing, a lack of nerve is certainly not one of his flaws!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think that kicking somebody in his stomach and raping a woman only differ in what part of the victim's body was touched. A shoe against your belly or a penis against your vagina--what difference does it make. What you are missing is the crucial importance of sexual integrity to a person's life.
This is interesting. I kinda agree with you in feeling that sex crimes don't merely count as "assault." I haven't read all of the thread, so I'll (try to) read the rest before I ask about this "sexual integrity" thing.

Does one have the right to not have to see the body parts of another? Is it the exposure of genitals or the percieved threat of sexual assault that is the problem? Was Clinton's (alleged?) exposure a come on, a flirt, or was it a threat?(I do believe there is a difference, the same difference between force and persuasion...)

This all depends on context AND an objective definition of "threat"

What then is an objective definition of "threat"? Is pointing a gun at a person always a threat (unless there is explicit consent)?

Consent may be presumed in certain cases, but not in others.
How would this be determined?

I understand that consent is required in cases of force or harm, but to use your example, why would a woman taking off her shirt require the consent of those who see her? I wouldn't think it's a case of force/harm - I suppose this is part of "sexual integrity"??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat,

Perception is non-volitional, you can't help seeing what is in front of your eyes, or understanding words spoken in a language you know - that is perception. Man's rights are not derived from perception, they are derived from our rational volitional consciousness.

Thought is a process - a volitional process. You can't help seeing what is there but it is impossible for a percept to force a thought. Your mind is your own, you are responsible for your own thoughts. If some guy flashes you, you can't help perceiving "penis" - whether you think "thats disgusting" or "hmmm tasty" is up to you.

CF fails to integrate his knowlege that rights are derived from man's rational volitional consciousness with the issue at hand. When he tries to derive a right from perception he frontally contradicts Objectivism.

When I am the one defending Ayn Rand's position??

"You can't force a mind" is Ayn Rand's position, you are arguing that you can, and that doing so is a crime.

mrocktor

[off topic]

If you are going to exercise you moderatorness in this thread despite the fact that you have a "conflict of interest" so to speak, my evaluation of you will sink further. The proper thing to do, should you think moderating action is necessary, would be to engage one of the other mods to read the thread and decide whether my assertion is unsupported or not. Since the post is still there, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that is what you chose to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat,

Perception is non-volitional, you can't help seeing what is in front of your eyes, or understanding words spoken in a language you know - that is perception. Man's rights are not derived from perception, they are derived from our rational volitional consciousness.

Thought is a process - a volitional process. You can't help seeing what is there but it is impossible for a percept to force a thought. Your mind is your own, you are responsible for your own thoughts. If some guy flashes you, you can't help perceiving "penis" - whether you think "thats disgusting" or "hmmm tasty" is up to you.

Understanding the meaning of language is perception? I'm not sure... I thought that perception is just the very first level of perceiving shape/color (similar things in the realm of sounds) etc'.

What definition of "Perception" are you using?

There is also a problem with saying that a person does not have rights to not perceive certain things. What about a case in which the people who moved to the apartment next to you make non-stop loud noises? Those noises prevent me from being able to be productive or relaxed (or to function in general) in my own home. I have no choice about perceiving the noise and about the noise being a disruption. I can't tell my mind "stop hearing those sounds and go to sleep". I would consider non-stop noise to be physical violence of some sort, like if someone had constantly shoved me.

What do you think about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understanding the meaning of language is perception? I'm not sure...

To the extent it is automated, yes. When you see an apple as an infant you perceive a red blob of color. As a child you perceive an apple. It's still perception.

What about a case in which the people who moved to the apartment next to you make non-stop loud noises?

That is a violation of contract, if the apartment building has a sensible rule set. For neighboring houses, where such a contract may not exist, a violation of your property rights may still occur - if when you bought (or claimed) your property there was no noise (introducing noise in your land violates your rights). If you bought a house next to an existing airport though, the noise does not violate your property rights (because that is what you bought).

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understanding the meaning of language is perception? I'm not sure... I thought that perception is just the very first level of perceiving shape/color (similar things in the realm of sounds) etc'.

What definition of "Perception" are you using?

Perception is not just that first level, that is what the senses give us, perception is recognizing what those senses give us so we can act upon it. If the automatic process of sound waves into language and translated into concepts, or the recognition of light waves into images that can translate into a concept is brought into the world of volitional where you can choose to translate it or not, then any spoken phrase that a person says that initiates thoughts of sex would under CF's logic be a violation of rights, let alone a simple image. Everytime some one says or displays something you are "forcing" them to form a thought process to understand what their senses are telling them. This is not initiation of force or violation of rights.

There is also a problem with saying that a person does not have rights to not perceive certain things. What about a case in which the people who moved to the apartment next to you make non-stop loud noises? Those noises prevent me from being able to be productive or relaxed (or to function in general) in my own home. I have no choice about perceiving the noise and about the noise being a disruption. I can't tell my mind "stop hearing those sounds and go to sleep". I would consider non-stop noise to be physical violence of some sort, like if someone had constantly shoved me.

What do you think about this?

The repeated blasting of loud music is very different. After you understand what it is you can go ask the other person to stop and if they refuse, then you can talk about rights violations. If disturbing noises were a violation of rights, anytime the neighbor dropped a pan, tripped and fell and made a loud noise, his baby cried, etc., he'd be violating rights, which is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I say "I'm going to kill you" (and say it in a serious tone) I am violating your rights. By the same token, exposing oneself without permission in an inappropriate setting is a rights violation; it is inherently sexual.

False analogy. In the first case you are threatening to kill me, in the second you are threatening nothing.

If you expose yourself and advance in a threatening manner, that would be similar to exposing a knife and advancing in a threatening manner. Exposing yourself itself is not a rights violation - the threat of violence, sexual or otherwise, is.

Exposing yourself may be sexual, being sexual is not a crime.

mrocktor

[off topic]

As of now, one of my posts has been deleted. No notification or justification has been given via PM. I am assuming CF did it and reporting this to one of the other mods for verification.

Edited by mrocktor
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...