Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

[Capitalism Forever]

You're contradicting yourself again

(emphasis reintroduced)

You're misunderstanding me again. In the second sentence, I am referring to a situation where there is NO sexual activity involved, but a certain action requires consent for a reason UNRELATED to sexual activities. Where's the contradiction?

[Capitalism Forever]

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. Rights are for the protection of FREEDOM, not from the irrational. Yes force, and the violation of freedom is irrational, but there are ways of being irrational that do not abridge the freedom of others, a freedom that includes their right to be irrational.

Yes, you may be irrational and still stay within your rights--provided that your irrationality doesn't get into the way of another person's pursuit of a rational life. Yes, rights protect your freedom--namely, your freedom from irrational interference with your life.

Let me add some of my own bold to the quote from Miss Rand:

The concept of a "right" [...] means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

And let me re-post the quote from Miss Rand that I've been defending through all these pages:

No one has the right to do whatever he pleases on a public street (nor would he have such a right on a privately owned street).... Similarly, the rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as "For Adults Only," may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

Regarding the "action" or "positive" issue:

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgement, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice.

Your right to sexual integrity is a moral sanction of a positive: of your decision to value your sexual integrity, your freedom to choose your sexual activities according to your own judgment, for your own sexual goals, by your own voluntary, uncoerced choice. (Italics hers--AND mine!)

[Capitalism Forever]

All conscious animals have perception (of some sort) so rights are obviously not tied to perception.

This could be true, depending on what you mean by "tied to." But to go from here to say that any action that involves perception on the victim's part cannot be a violation of his rights--that's a non-sequitur.

The attempt the take away that choice, is the violation of a right, the violation of a rational being's right to his rationality, i.e. his conceptual autonomy.

Right. But the victim will perceive the attempt to take away that choice, won't he?

[mrocktor]

And let me re-post the quote from Miss Rand that I've been defending through all these pages:

This is not what you have been defending through all these pages. You have been defending that exposure in one's own home is a crime against a guest - because "he didn't expect it".

EDIT: On second reading, apparently Ayn Rand's position may have been very close to what you are advocating (I'm not sure why she would have said "private street" and not "his own home" if that were the case though). That just means she was wrong.

Your right to sexual integrity is a moral sanction of a positive: of your decision to value your sexual integrity, your freedom to choose your sexual activities according to your own judgment, for your own sexual goals, by your own voluntary, uncoerced choice.

You have not given a proper definition for "sexual activities" - don't use the term until you do. Since this is, so far, undefined your definition of sexual integrity above is meaningless.

You can't define "sexual activity" as something that is outside the realm of choice (i.e. volition) and then claim a right to "choose your sexual activities" - you can't choose them by definition. What you are demanding, since you are demanding a right to choose perceptions, is that everyone else guess what you want, what you expect, what won't offend you. Whether you are completely random about this or merely expect others to conform to "social norm" is irrelevant.

A proper definition of "sexual activities" will limit the term to activities - actions you volitionally engage in. In that context the term makes sense, the right to choose them follows directly from the right to freedom - its rational. Of course it doesn't support what you want it too - thats just reality for you.

You are in open rebellion against reality - in that you want to perceive only aspects of it that you approve - and against your fellow man - in that you demand that he act to mold reality to your whim.

mrocktor

Edited September 29, 2006 by mrocktor

[mrocktor]

Right. But the victim will perceive the attempt to take away that choice, won't he?

No. You perceive a person's appearance, you perceive a gun, you perceive the dark alley, you perceive the phrase "give me your wallet". You reason that you don't want to give him your wallet, you reason that he presents a threat to your life, you choose to give him your wallet because of the threat - you act differently than you would if uncoerced and that is why coercing is a crime.

To understand a threat requires conceptual thought. To be threatened requires volition. The percept is not the threat.

mrocktor

[Lathanar]

And in the gun case, the accuser is expecting the accused to know that in that circumstance, exposing a gun is a threat for them. Threats are totally subjective, so the law should have nothing to do with them.

Actually, yes, the actual means of threats themselves are subjective. The person threatening someone is making an assumption that what he is doing is taken as a threat. What is not subjective is intent. Just because he did a bad job of threatening someone with the gun does not mean that's what he intended and that's why threats alone normally are not treated under the law. You can threaten someone if you don't coerce them by threatening them or repeatedly harrass them. Telling someone "I'm going to kill you" is perfectly legal, but you can't say "I'm going to kill you unless you give me your wallet".

Which is not my opinion, of course. It's a reductio ad absurdum of your opinion. It doesn't matter what the accuser thinks, nor what the accused intends. What matters is whether a reasonable person would interpret the action as a threat in the given situation. The law should be based on that, and the only thing the accused is expected to know is what the law says.

And the same applies to sexual situations.

The absurdity of your opinion is that what the accused intended does not matter, that's the whole point of a trial and a defense.

What's even worse is the idea that the law is no longer objective and gets to start punishing actions subject to the whims of society, especially when dealing with sexual situations under your definitions. 20 years ago you would never see sexual body parts on prime time network TV. If you did see that, under your logic, it'd be unexpected and a sexual activity and a violation of rights. Now you do see it, so is it now suddenly not a violation of rights because you can expect to see it. Society and social circumstances do not get to determine if something violates rights or not, an action either does or doesn't.

[hunterrose]

It's not a talk vs. sight issue. It's a communication vs. sexual situation issue... actually pulling out your sexual organ is already a sexual situation.

But by everything you've said up to this point

A good test for whether a given action is a sexual activity is to take a reasonable man who hasn't made an effort to learn not to think of sex in given situations and make him [perceive] the action in question. If he can avoid thinking of sex, it isn't a sexual activity; if he cannot help but to think of sex, it is one.

The nature of the human sexual system is such that even the perception of a sexual act constitutes a sexual activity.

seeing a penis (visual perception) constitutes a sexual act, and talking about a penis (aural perception) would constitute a sexual act - and thus both subject to consent laws and legal enforcement?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Regarding the "action" or "positive" issue:

QUOTE(Ayn Rand)

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgement, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice.

Your right to sexual integrity is a moral sanction of a positive: of your decision to value your sexual integrity, your freedom to choose your sexual activities according to your own judgment, for your own sexual goals, by your own voluntary, uncoerced choice. (Italics hers--AND mine!)

Let me FINISH that quote of hers for you and then I will be done because it is pointless going on about this with you.

...by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his right impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights

The only way to violate rights is to take away someone's freedom of action, of excercising their choice.

Good luck and good-bye.

[Lathanar]

Let me add some of my own bold to the quote from Miss Rand:

Lets look at the part before this quote

Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper -- but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality

How can displays of pornography be a violations of rights but at the same time not be an issue of morality? I find it quite amazing that she has falling back on social convention as a device for legislation at all. Right now this is a point I completely disagree with her on, and if someone else knows where else she describes where the norms of society should be used to create law, I'd like to know to see where her reasoning goes. By her saying it's an issue of etiquette, then there is no restriction on pornography being displayed as long as it's socially accepted.

I'd also like to point out something of her quote your defending. Her issue here is "protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive" for which you have chewed several people out for using the word offend when not being offended is what this all comes down to. She's sees the issue the same as the rest of us do.

[Capitalism Forever]

You have not given a proper definition for "sexual activities" - don't use the term until you do.

Definitions apply to concepts. "Sexual activity" is not a concept, it is a phrase which qualifies "activities" with the adjective "sexual." And I have given an adequate explanation of what exactly I mean by it, so don't pretend you don't understand what I mean.

You can't define "sexual activity" as something that is outside the realm of choice (i.e. volition) and then claim a right to "choose your sexual activities" - you can't choose them by definition.

You can choose them, or they can be forced on you. The latter should be against the law. It's this simple!

What you are demanding, since you are demanding a right to choose perceptions, is that everyone else guess what you want, what you expect, what won't offend you.

What I want doesn't matter. What I expect doesn't matter. What won't offend me doesn't matter. See here .

Whether you are completely random about this or merely expect others to conform to "social norm" is irrelevant.

"Social norm" doesn't matter.

You are in open rebellion against reality

I, and Ayn Rand.

[mrocktor]

Definitions apply to concepts. "Sexual activity" is not a concept, it is a phrase which qualifies "activities" with the adjective "sexual." And I have given an adequate explanation of what exactly I mean by it, so don't pretend you don't understand what I mean.

Activities are active, they are chosen. When a doctor taps your knee and your leg flinches, that is not an activity. Going to the doctor is an activity. Tapping your leg is an activity. Leg flinching is just a reflex - not self generated action, not within the realm of morality.

Yes, I understand what you mean by the term. Equivocation is what it is called.

You can choose them, or they can be forced on you. The latter should be against the law. It's this simple!

You cannot force a mind. You cannot be forced to think against your will. As long as you are free to act according to your judgment - you are free in the fullest sense of the word. Rights pertain to freedom of action. Freedom of thought is metaphysical. It's that simple.

What I want doesn't matter. What I expect doesn't matter. What won't offend me doesn't matter. See here . "Social norm" doesn't matter.

Of course they matter - you are defending that you should have the right to press ciminal charges if you see something you don't like. Fifty years ago that would have been a thigh, today it's breasts and genitalia.

I, and Ayn Rand.

You have not proven you are right (and just to remind you, yours is the positive claim). Appeal to authority is not helping your argument any more than equivocation did.

mrocktor

Edited October 2, 2006 by mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

No. You perceive a person's appearance, you perceive a gun, you perceive the dark alley, you perceive the phrase "give me your wallet". You reason that you don't want to give him your wallet, you reason that he presents a threat to your life, you choose to give him your wallet because of the threat - you act differently than you would if uncoerced and that is why coercing is a crime.

To understand a threat requires conceptual thought. To be threatened requires volition. The percept is not the threat.

OK, so suppose that for some reason I fail to reason as described above, and the robber goes ahead and shoots me. Does this exhonerate him?

[Capitalism Forever]

The absurdity of your opinion is that what the accused intended does not matter, that's the whole point of a trial and a defense.

The intent of the accused does not matter in establishing whether the plaintiff's rights have been infringed. To answer the question "Has John stepped on Mary's foot?" you don't have to know whether John meant to step on Mary's foot; all you have to establish is whether or not he did step on her foot.

If the answer is yes, then the next question to determine is whether it was an innocent or willful infringement--whether, in our analogy, John meant to step on Mary's foot. In the case of an innocent infringement, the defendant is not legally guilty, but he is still responsible for the damage done to the plaintiff.

What's even worse is the idea that the law is no longer objective and gets to start punishing actions subject to the whims of society, especially when dealing with sexual situations under your definitions. 20 years ago you would never see sexual body parts on prime time network TV. If you did see that, under your logic, it'd be unexpected and a sexual activity and a violation of rights. Now you do see it, so is it now suddenly not a violation of rights because you can expect to see it.

You do? During prime time?

Society and social circumstances do not get to determine if something violates rights or not, an action either does or doesn't.

But the meanings of words and gestures are determined by what you call "society," and whether or not an action is rightful often depends on what communications preceded it. The meaning of "Give me your money or I'll kill you" has been established by what you call "society"--does this make your right to your life and property subjective?

[hunterrose]

"Sexual activity" ... is a phrase which qualifies "activities" with the adjective "sexual." And I have given an adequate explanation of what exactly I mean by it.

But I think your explanation includes a lot of other things that almost certainly shouldn't be legislated. If I invite a young lady to my house for some sex, isn't being "forced" to hear (and think about?) sex just as much a violation of her sexual integrity as being "forced" to see (and think about?) body parts?

And I'm not sure if the threat aspect is a part of your argument (so this may be irrelevant), but I don't think a reasonable man would see a woman's exposing of her breasts as threatening.

[Capitalism Forever]

seeing a penis (visual perception) constitutes a sexual act, and talking about a penis (aural perception) would constitute a sexual act

Hearing someone talk about a penis is not aural perception of a penis; it is aural perception of a concept. You cannot aurally perceive a penis because it doesn't make any sound.

If you want to know whether there's a significant difference between hearing someone talk of a penis and actually perceiving a penis ...................... ask any woman!

[mrocktor]

OK, so suppose that for some reason I fail to reason as described above, and the robber goes ahead and shoots me. Does this exhonerate him?

No, it only makes you dead. You have to choose to think. Your choices (and his) are in the realm of morality. The means by which you get information from reality (perception) is not.

Seriously, if you do not grasp this you should restart your study of Objectivism from the very beggining because your philosophy is floating on nothing.

mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

Activities are active, they are chosen. When a doctor taps your knee and your leg flinches, that is not an activity. Going to the doctor is an activity. Tapping your leg is an activity. Leg flinching is just a reflex - not self generated action, not within the realm of morality.

Okay, so replace "activity" with "situation." You do not have a right to put a person into a sexual situation without his consent.

You cannot force a mind. You cannot be forced to think against your will.

No one is talking about thinking here. (Where "thinking" refers to the conscious, volitionally chosen action of logical reasoning.) What I am talking about is experiencing a sexual situation--and that can definitely be done to you against your will, as anyone who has been raped will tell you.

As long as you are free to act according to your judgment - you are free in the fullest sense of the word.

So you believe fraud should be legal?

Of course they matter - you are defending that you should have the right to press ciminal charges if you see something you don't like.

The above is a double misrepresentation of my (and Ayn Rand's) position. I never mentioned criminal charges anywhere, and the "don't like" stuff is a complete fabrication on your part.

Please rescind your statement and apologize.

Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority is a type of fallacious argument, where the arguer expects to convince his audience of a proposition by mentioning authorities. My purpose in making that brief remark certainly didn't have anything to do with convincing you or anyone else of anything; I was just feeling proud to be "rebelling against reality" the same way Ayn Rand did.

[hunterrose]

Hearing someone talk about a penis is not aural perception of a penis; it is aural perception of a concept. You cannot aurally perceive a penis because it doesn't make any sound.

Granted, I suppose, but...

Okay, so replace "activity" with "situation." You do not have a right to put a person into a sexual situation without his consent.

That really doesn't make it much better. How does seeing a sexual organ force a person into a sexual situation if receiving sexual communications does not?

[Capitalism Forever]

I'd also like to point out something of her quote your defending. Her issue here is "protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive" for which you have chewed several people out for using the word offend when not being offended is what this all comes down to.

I addressed this quite early on in the thread:

[Capitalism Forever]

How does seeing a sexual organ force a person into a sexual situation if receiving sexual communications does not?

Careful there, "receiving sexual communications" can mean many things. There can be different means of communication and different subject matters. Clinton's action towards Miss Jones could be called "sexual communications"--an attempt to invite her to have sex--but the means of communicating the invitation consisted of actually starting to perform the actions he wanted to obtain her consent for.

The particular sexual communications in your example--a purely verbal, non-graphic, non-binding invitation--is one that remains entirely on the conceptual level and leaves the invitee free to avoid any visualization of sexual content. In fact, as I said, that poor Christian gal is more likely to visualize damnation and hell than anything else.

[Maarten]

But being raped is a clear initiation of force, and so is fraud. When someone defrauds you they are making it impossible for you to act upon your judgment, so because of that it's wrong.

It does not follow from these things that the mere perception of someone's genitalia is an initiation of force... In what way does seeing a penis constitute an initiation of force against you? When someone uses direct physical force against you it is very clear, and with more indirect forms of force like fraud it is more difficult to see but they are still interfering with your judgment because reality is being misrepresented.

In essence any type of interference with your body can be an initation of force (depending on the context; if your friend playfully pushes you it wouldn't really be an initation of force, of course), it doesn't really matter how much of an initiation of force it is. That's why I think it is a mistake to say that, just because sex is extremely important, different rules apply to it.

If initation of force against you is bad because it interferes with your ability to assess a situation correctly and deal with it rationally, then seeing a sexual organ cannot be initiation of force. You yourself have admitted (I think, please correct me if you are wrong, the threat is rather long but I think you said that) that it's not the reasoning process afterwards that's an initiation of force against you, but the perception of the sexual organ itself. Only an action can be an initiation of force, and an object being perceived is not acting (I mean the object itself is not acting).

Of course, a person showing you their genitals IS acting, but merely seeing him does not equal an initation of force, unless you somehow consititute it as a threat. That very much depends on context, though, and there's a huge gap between saying that in some situations showing others your penis can be seen as a threat and saying that perceiving genitalia is an initiation of force against you when you do not expect to see them.

CF, could you explain how exactly the perception of a sexual organ interferes with your ability to deal with reality by using your rational mind?

[hunterrose]

A purely verbal, non-graphic, non-binding invitation--is one that … leaves the invitee free to avoid any visualization of sexual content.

Hmm..

If I tell a woman that I wish to sleep with her, assuming she understands English and she doesn’t blank me out or physically close her ears, she can’t help comprehend what I’m saying, regardless of what her subsequent reaction will be. But this is essentially the same for visual perceptions, right?

[mrocktor]

Okay, so replace "activity" with "situation." You do not have a right to put a person into a sexual situation without his consent.

Yes you do. To the extent that the "sexual situation" does not involve breaching contract, deceiving the other person or coercing them to act other than they would absent force (or a threat of force) you have every right to put a person in whichever situation, sexual or otherwise, you wish.

A situation is just another name for metaphysical reality at a given moment. You continue to rebel against reality. You don't get to have other people mold reality for you - you have to deal with it yourself (and have a right to do so).

No one is talking about thinking here. (Where "thinking" refers to the conscious, volitionally chosen action of logical reasoning.) What I am talking about is experiencing a sexual situation--and that can definitely be done to you against your will, as anyone who has been raped will tell you.

Experiencing cannot breach anyones integrity. Perception is not volitional, that which you do not choose you cannot be morally evaluated on. I, and several others, have made this point time and again - perception and reflexive body responses are not in the realm of morality.

So you believe fraud should be legal?

Fraud is gaining a value by engaging in trade on false premises. The contract is void because you do not keep up to your side of the bargain, force is initiated when you keep the other party's goods that you have no right to (since you breached what they agreed to).

The above is a double misrepresentation of my (and Ayn Rand's) position. I never mentioned criminal charges anywhere, and the "don't like" stuff is a complete fabrication on your part.

I'll rephrase. You are advocating that it should be illegal to show you things you do not like.

And that is no fabrication - it is exactly what you are saying. You demand that people obtain consent before exposing you to reality, you are demanding a right to avoid percepts you do not want to perceive. When we perceive something we disaprove of, we are offended. You are demanding a right not to perceive that which you disaprove of. You are demanding a right not to be offended - it is an identity.

That your irrational demands on others are limited to sexual images is irrelevant. The whole principle is flawed at the root. Myself and others have shown you why you are wrong several times.

An appeal to authority is a type of fallacious argument, where the arguer expects to convince his audience of a proposition by mentioning authorities. My purpose in making that brief remark certainly didn't have anything to do with convincing you or anyone else of anything; I was just feeling proud to be "rebelling against reality" the same way Ayn Rand did.

I feel proud of applying reason where even she failed (if we accept your claim that your position is hers).

CF, could you explain how exactly the perception of a sexual organ interferes with your ability to deal with reality by using your rational mind?

He has evaded that for about 10 pages worth of posts now.

mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

But being raped is a clear initiation of force

I suppose you mean raping is a clear initiation of force. Yes, it is, for two reasons: 1, it's a violation of the victim's physical integrity (an attack on her body), and 2, it's a violation of her sexual integrity. (All this assumes that she doesn't want to be raped. There is such a thing as consensual rape.)

This has no bearing on the point I made to mrocktor, namely that you can be placed into a sexual situation against your will. The "force" question arises later in the logical hierarchy: it is against her will, therefore it is force.

When someone defrauds you they are making it impossible for you to act upon your judgment, so because of that it's wrong.

Not quite. When somebody defrauds you into entering a transaction, you are entering the transaction voluntarily. You judge, "this sounds like a good deal," and then you act on your judgment. And you also judge the person as probably being honest. Both of your judgments will eventually turn out as incorrect--but that is (devil's advocate mode) entirely your fault, isn't it?

Fraud is an attempt to interfere with a rational person's pursuit of rational goals, and therefore it is force.

In what way does seeing a penis constitute an initiation of force against you?

I suppose you mean making you see a penis.

A rational person will have certain rational goals regarding whom he wants to be in sexual situations with. Placing him into a sexual situation against his will interferes with his pursuit of this goal--therefore it is force.

if your friend playfully pushes you it wouldn't really be an initation of force, of course

...because you consent to being so pushed, or at least your friend can rationally presume that you consent.

Only an action can be an initiation of force

This is absolutely correct.

and an object being perceived is not acting (I mean the object itself is not acting). Of course, a person showing you their genitals IS acting

This is correct too, and that action is the initiation of force.

CF, could you explain how exactly the perception of a sexual organ interferes with your ability to deal with reality by using your rational mind?

The showing of a sexual organ to you against your will, because it puts you into a sexual situation against your will, interferes with your ability to select the sexual situations you are going to be in according to your rational judgment.

[Capitalism Forever]

If I tell a woman that I wish to sleep with her, assuming she understands English and she doesn’t blank me out or physically close her ears, she can’t help comprehend what I’m saying, regardless of what her subsequent reaction will be.

But she will comprehend you on the conceptual level, and she can keep it at the conceptual level if that's what she wants. She doesn't have to perceive or visualize any of the concretes that make up a sexual act. Her thought process can be limited to: "He wants to sleep with me. I don't want to sleep with strangers. So I'll say no." She can reach the "no" without ever thinking about what it's like to sleep with you.