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

You couldn't be more wrong. If an employer makes a request that the employee doesn't wish to do, then the employee has every right to quit. If a boss threatens to fire the employee if she doesn't have sex with him, that should be his right. It's simply his right to do what he wants with his property - his property being the job. The job that the employee is hired to do is not hers, it is the boss', and so it cannot be taken away from her. If he decides that he will include "having sex with me" in the job description, then the employee has a right to accept the changes or quit.

I've been going over what I posted in my head on the way home, and there's something both right and wrong there that I can't put my finger on. I'll have to come back to it after I evaluate it a little more.

I will say I wasn't trying to advocate that someone has a right to a job, I was zoning in on the threats being levied against the employee to gain something outside the realm of the job. Just because you are paying someone a wage, doesn't mean you own them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF - thank you for giving us an idea of what you meant by these key terms. I'm going to point out some of the problems I have with them and their implications.

To start, this list only has one legitimate sexual activity included - "touching a sexual organ." Going down...

pornography - A depiction of deliberate sexual activity including images of exposed sexual organs.

sexual activity - An action by a human that is closely related to or used as a substitute for sex, such as:

  • Kissing or being kissed on the mouth or an erogenous part of the body

Kissing is not a sexual activity necessarily - kissing a relative, small child, pet, or parent does not have an inherently sexual connotation - not even "on the mouth.

  • Fantasizing about sex

Simply thinking or fantasizing about sex is not a sexual activity - only a combination of physical and/or physical and mental stimulation can be properly labeled under the category sex. Thinking about chocolate cake or thinking about jogging doesn't actually count as eating a dessert or exercising.

  • Deliberate viewing of exposed sexual organs for arousal

Being aroused is not a sexual activity - it is a normal physical reaction to a variety of stimuli. It is not sexual unless arousal is acted upon with deliberate intention. Having an erection does not equate to sex.

  • Unexpected seeing of exposed sexual organs

There is nothing inherently sexual about seeing a penis, vagina, or breasts - there is nothing inherently sexual about nudity.

  • Unexpected seeing of erect human penis, even if covered

Are you saying that if I have an erection while clothed and anyone happens to see it, they and I are engaged in a "sexual activity"?

sexual organ - Human penis, vagina, teenage girl's or grown-up woman's breasts

A female's breasts are not sexual organs - and viewing them or exposing them is as sexual as a man without his shirt on. The fact that females have different chests than men, doesn't mean they are sexual. The fact that our culture has made them so, goes back to my explanation of pornography a couple of posts back. Female breasts can be used in sex, seeing as how they are erogenous - but so can any other part of the body.

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 perform 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.

This is where I really get confused. Just a few of my problems:

  • What is a "reasonable" man?
  • By what standard is he reasonable?
  • How would you know he wasn't thinking of sex?
  • Are you saying that a man cannot control his sexual impulses? That he "cannot help" himself?
  • How can man be sexually deterministic while possessing free will?

On the other hand, if you unexpectedly see a movie showing people having sex, then you have no choice: what you see already IS sex, not just a potential cue that gives you a chance to think of sex if you want to. It literally puts an idea into your mind by force.

"Puts an idea into your mind by force"?? Seeing someone else have sex does not mean you are participating in a sexual activity. A sexual activity must involve not only mental - but physical stimulation. There is no force involved here by any meaningful definition of the word. This is the key difference in our viewpoints - you consider involuntarily seeing something as "force." You then define a sexual activity as being able to happen solely in the mind of the participant. Hence your rights are violated when you are "forced" to participate in a "sexual actiity", this being a violation of your rights. Unfortunately, even by your skewed definitions, there is no force involved. Physical force, or the threat of physical force is the only way your rights can be violated. The fact that youv'e divorced sexual activities from the physical does not create a new right - the right to an untouched mind. The fact that you have volition (something you've been denying in regards to sexuality) means that you have control over your body and your consciousness. You cannot be made - without physical coercion - to participate in a sexual activity. The fact that your eyes are your property does not mean that your property rights are being violated by seeing something objectionable.

So - to sum up your fundamental errors:

  • conflating physical force with "mental force" (ie. any sensorial input processed by your mind)
  • divorcing sexual activities from the physical realm by making it possible for a purely mental sexual interaction
  • incorrectly postulating a non-contextual definition of pornography - seeing sexual organs or societally promoted sexual organs (such as breasts) does not necessitate arousal.
  • incorrectly interpreting the right to property and what constitutes a violation of that right

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are asking me to prove a claim I never made. Go back to my post and read what I actually wrote.

I just did. You quoted me and then said that it was "an all too common view, probably originating from a libertarian distortion of Ayn Rand's notion of rights." Normally when you quote someone, then refer to the quote and then ascribe something to it, you are making a claim.

It appears to me that you and some of the other posters often just read my posts, get some fuzzy idea about what I could be saying, and respond to that, instead of trying to understand what exactly I mean.

I am in full possession of my reason - don't insult me. The fact that we disgree doesn't mean that I've been engaging in "fuzzy logic."

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same logic, murders would never happen either, because people wouldn't want to face the risk of life in prison or capital punishment. Our legal system would be very different--and much less busy--if everyone could be counted on to act according to his rational self-interest. The law's main target are precisely those people who choose not to pursue their own rational interests.

You're responding under the assumption that showing pornography on a plane without prior consent, is a crime or a violation of your rights rather than being unconventional.

If, however, he is not normal and civil, but say is carrying a goat with him and has his sexual organ inserted into the animal's rear orifice, then he cannot presume the owner's consent, and the owner has a legal case against him.

What do you mean by "normal"?

If the owner of the store doesn't want him in there then he has every right to throw him out. There is no fundamental difference between the man and the goat and the man with the stained shirt - the only difference is the level of offense you may have to their actions.

Why the difference? Because stores normally do allow in people with stained shirts, so the guy with the stained shirt couldn't have known that he was not welcome in there. But the guy with the goat could know that the owner wasn't likely to allow him in.

Why do you presume he knows that?

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in full possession of my reason - don't insult me. The fact that we disgree doesn't mean that I've been engaging in "fuzzy logic."

Well, we somehow seem to speak two very different versions of English. You keep misunderstanding what I say. It requires a lot of patience and time to set your interpretations of my statements straight; I have plenty of the former but not enough of the latter right now. I may get back to you next week; until then, if you are seriously interested in this issue, re-read my posts and please try to make out their exact meanings.

Two hints:

1. I should usually be taken literally.

2. The phrase "automotive component" is not synonymous with "automobile." A windshield wiper is certainly not a car, but it IS a car part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking this solely in context of deception, regardless of the means of the deception (forget about the sexual aspect), should it actually be illegal. Thinking about it, I don't see why it should be unless it can be shown that damage was caused.
This is the problem, any damage occured in this way would be psychological, and this is not exactly an easy thing to prove. I don't know if jail time is a neccesary punishment, but I would support some kind of actionable status in the civil courts, such as a compensation for breach of contract, proportional to the amount of damage that can be proven.

Bringing the sex back into it, I agree with sexual harassment laws that protect people from losing their jobs or other types of damage if they don't submit to sexual advances, and in this case I don't think any threats of that nature were made, just an advance. I don't agree with the law trying to protect people from being offended. That's a matter for company policy and human resource department, not the law, if your coworkers are offensive individuals and the means of correcting the situation in the company don't work, quit.

I would agree with this, although I don't support sexual harrassment laws because they are too subjective, but I would add that "full disclosure" should be given as to company policy in the contract. If we have a signed contract that wasn't read properly, obviously the issue is null and void. But if we have a contract that makes no mention of what policy is regarding socializing between employer and employee, the court can step in.

Bringing this back to the original post, if deception, then I could see them questioning Monica Lewinsky about how Clinton made advances to her to show pattern, but not to question what they did with each other. If it was threat, I'd also question Lewinsky about whether threats were made to her too.
The media was primarily responsible for spreading all the gory details of the affair around, obviously displaying the true nature of muck raking journalism, but those details were not relevant to the issues of deception, threats, or breach of contract. I didn't join any Republicans on their ideas that the law should be used to enforce marital fidelity pre-emptively. But insofar as it pertains to a pattern of business behavior, you obviously question everyone that can help reveal this pattern.

One last thing, if my memory serves right, wasn't the impeachment because they asked Clinton if he had sex, not actually what he did, but simply had sex with Lewinsky and he said no under oath? I think he would have been better fighting off the question rather than lie, the question really was not needed, only whether he made advances and under what circumstances.

If he had taken this route, it would have surprised me, Bill Clinton has had problems with the truth since he was first elected Governer of Arkansas. Pretty much every politician today is a pragmatist at some level, but he embodied a very pure form of it. Later on in his series of testimonies he got into subjective reasoning that made me reminisce of a third rate student of Immanuel Kant I had once debated, debating what the definition of "IS" actually was.

IMO, if a boss makes a sexual advance to an employee (which I take to be a request for consent to have sex, made in a manner that does not infringe on her rights) and she refuses, then the boss has every right to terminate her employment according to the termination provisions of her contract, just like he always had. In other words, the employee's saying no to sex does not cancel her contract's termination clauses. Why would it?
If this is fully laid out in the contract, and there is no provable deception, I'd definitely agree with you. There is no divine right to stupidity.

You're responding under the assumption that showing pornography on a plane without prior consent, is a crime or a violation of your rights rather than being unconventional.

If this unconventional practice is not included in advertizing or is freely accessable (a simple "we don't filter the movies we show on our flights and will show pretty much anything regardless of rating" would probably do the job) I'd say we have a problem. Now, word of mouth can travel pretty quickly with such things, but a surprise innovation of showing pornography on a plane, that is unannounced, is asking for trouble, law or no law.

If the owner of the store doesn't want him in there then he has every right to throw him out. There is no fundamental difference between the man and the goat and the man with the stained shirt - the only difference is the level of offense you may have to their actions.
A company can lose customers if they have the impression that a certain kind of riff-raff has free run of the store, this kind of damage to profits could be defined as a form of vandalism. If there is an advertizing campaign that states certain kinds of stores have a certain policy, and a "we are a participating location" sign is clearly visible, legal recourse would definitely be an option.

Why do you presume he knows that?

I can't think of a single store off-hand that would allow anyone to bring a goat in with him, this is pretty much common sense. If it's his first time at a store, it makes me wonder how he was getting his supplies before hand, unless maybe he's a young child. If you wished to argue in the case of a seeing-eye dog, this would be different, but I can't think of any other purpose to have an animal with you while being physically in a store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we somehow seem to speak two very different versions of English. You keep misunderstanding what I say. It requires a lot of patience and time to set your interpretations of my statements straight; I have plenty of the former but not enough of the latter right now. I may get back to you next week; until then, if you are seriously interested in this issue, re-read my posts and please try to make out their exact meanings.

Two hints:

1. I should usually be taken literally.

2. The phrase "automotive component" is not synonymous with "automobile." A windshield wiper is certainly not a car, but it IS a car part.

I've re-read your posts and when you have time to fully respond I'd be interested in your explanation. Your two hints are relatively useless to me - I by default, take someone seriously unless they demonstrate otherwise, and I fully understand the difference between sex and sexual activity (although not by your definition).

The main problem here is that you have the notion that a person has a "right" to sexual integrity - not merely the sanctity of one's body (which is covered by property rights) but of one's mind. Or am I misunderstanding your position? If I am then what right exactly is being violated by being exposed to pornography or "sexual activity" without consent, even by your definitions? Since rights can only be violated by the threat or use of force, I am at a loss to see how you can claim this. If anyone else reading this thread can explain CF's position or my error of thinking than please do. One of us is wrong here - but I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this eventually.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kissing is not a sexual activity necessarily - kissing a relative, small child, pet, or parent does not have an inherently sexual connotation - not even "on the mouth.

They don't kiss relatives (other than spouses) on the mouth where I come from--nor where you come from, I think. But anyway, make it "on the tongue"--you'll surely agree that that has an inherently sexual connotation, won't you?

The legal significance of this is that you may, for example, tap a stranger on his shoulder or tug at his coat to attract his attention, without having to ask him for permission to do so, but you may not kiss him on the tongue without his prior consent. You may rightfully presume that he consents to being tapped on the shoulder because, although it is his shoulder, you are not seriously affecting his life by touching it. Since sexual activities are a serious part of one's life, though, and being kissed on the tongue is a sexual activity, you cannot presume that he consents to being kissed on the tongue.

Simply thinking or fantasizing about sex is not a sexual activity - only a combination of physical and/or physical and mental stimulation can be properly labeled under the category sex.

I do not use "sexual activity" as a synonym of "sex." There is a reason I type those twelve extra characters when I type them, and it is not out of a desire to exercise my fingers, but in order to make a conceptual distinction. When I say "sex" as such (i.e. NOT "sexual activity"), I mean this:

An interaction between humans, or between a human and an animal, involving a prolonged touching and purposeful arousal of sexual organs

As you can see, this is a rather narrow concept. Mere kissing on the tongue, for example, is not subsumed under it. Nor is fantasizing about sex, nor is masturbation, nor is the unexpected seeing of exposed sexual organs. (And seeing a girl in a bikini doesn't even come close.) So you're beating a strawman when you're saying those things are not sex. I don't think they are sex either.

But they are (except for the bikini) closely related to sex. When you do them, they make you think you are "in a sexual situation." They sort of set a flag in your mind: "What I am experiencing now has to do with sex." (Careful: "has to do with" is not a synonym of "is" !) This is why I group them together conceptually, under the heading "sexual activity"--which means, "an activity that is not necessarily sex, but has to do with sex."

For example:

Being kissed on the tongue is not sex.

Being kissed on the tongue is a sexual activity.

Fantasizing about sex is not sex.

Fantasizing about sex is a sexual activity.

The deliberate viewing of exposed sexual organs for arousal is not sex.

The deliberate viewing of exposed sexual organs for arousal is a sexual activity.

And so on.

Do you get the distinction now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this discussion has become tangential to the central issue.

There is no right not to see something or not to hear something one does not like or approve of. If you enter another's property, you retain your rights (life, freedom, property) but you do not gain claims on him or his property.

*High volume music near your home is a violation of your property rights

*Projecting some image onto the wall of your home is a violation of your property rights

*Physically assaulting you is a violation of your rights (no matter where it occurs)

*Exposing you to some image you do not like is not a rights violation

*Saying something you do not want to hear is not a rights violation

There is no "implicit" agreement not to show pornography, nudity, swastikas or crosses when you invite someone into your property. There is no "implicit" agreement not to pee on your table when you patronize a restaurant.

What you are defending CF, whether you realize it or not, is a "right" not to be offended. All your "implicit agreement" and "consent" verbiage is obfuscation. No one needs anyone's consent to show someone the finger, call them names or strip naked.

On the property of others, the result of these actions is probably being thrown out, on "public property" specific arbitrary norms exist exactly because it's no ones property, on your own property you can do all those things with impunity (well, except for the scorn of rational people).

In Clinton's case, the exposure itself was not a right violation. If there was deception involved in getting the woman to go to his room - that is a rights violation. If a threat of violence or physical force had been used - that would be a rights violation.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you get the distinction now?

I understand that you're going to great lengths to make a distinction between sex and any activity that can be related to the state of mind asociated with sex.

What I don't understand is why you're bothering to. I don't understand why you've failed to address the most important part of my posts - the fact that there is no right to "sanctity of the mind." If you think that there is and that violating this right by showing unwanted media is "force" you will have to show how that right is derived from the right to life and show how information can be a type of force. Until you do that continuing this discussion is pointless - why talk of "consent" in regards to rights violation, about a right that hasn't been established?

Some useful hints:

Can a right be violated through any means other than physical force or the threat of physical force?

The only implementation of the right to life is property. How does "sanctity of the mind" apply to either life or property?

Edit: I have operated on the assumption that you believe that there is a right to the "sanctity of the mind" because that has been the premise behind your arguments thus far. If this isn't your premise then please explain. If it is the premise you're continuing your argument with, then please justify it.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Projecting some image onto the wall of your home is a violation of your property rights

But projecting an image on my retina is not? Why the difference? Don't I own my retina just as much as I own my wall?

And is projecting any image--no matter what its content--onto my wall a violation of my rights? Can I sue any car driver whose headlights ever happen to be directed towards my wall? (Not even my window, mind you, but my blind, dark wall?)

What you are defending CF, whether you realize it or not, is a "right" not to be offended.

If some hypothetical poster--whose hypothetical posting I do not mean to imply any agreement with--said that you were an addlebrained idiot was not good enough to sweep streets, let alone post on Objectivist message boards, then (even though I would not agree with him) I would not think he was in violation of your rights.

Do you now accept that my position has nothing to do with "a right not to be offended" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you now accept that my position has nothing to do with "a right not to be offended" ?

No.

Projecting an image on your home is an action, it is open to moral debate. "Projecting" an image on your retina is metaphysical, no one controls where the light waves reflecting on them go and no one is required to know, much less cater to, whatever your whim determines you want or do not want to see.

If you don't want to see, close your eyes, look away, walk away.

mrocktor

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you're going to great lengths to make a distinction between sex and any activity that can be related to the state of mind asociated with sex.

OK, you're getting the distinction. I wouldn't be going to great lengths if you had recognized the distinction more readily, though; the two separate headings "sex" and "sexual activity," along with their explanations, should have been enough to convey what I meant.

What I don't understand is why you're bothering to.

You were equivocating between them.

I don't understand why you've failed to address the most important part of my posts - the fact that there is no right to "sanctity of the mind."

Is that the basis of your view of rights? Then my job is easy, because the basis of the Objectivist position on rights is precisely what you call the sanctity of the mind. You would do well to (re-)read the final section of Chapter 8 of OPAR, "The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil." As Dr. Peikoff explains, the initiation of force is evil because it is an attempt to force a person's mind. THAT is what makes it the opposite of reason, and THAT is the basis for a ban on all its forms under a proper government.

If you think that there is and that violating this right by showing unwanted media is "force" you will have to show how that right is derived from the right to life

A proper life entails sexual integrity.

and show how information can be a type of force.

It is not information we are talking about here; it is the induction of a sexual activity in a person against his will. You need to have a very strange definition of "information" for it to be the first concept to come to your mind when you see a sexual image.

(As a side note, it's very easy to show how true information--i.e. the provision of knowledge--can be a form of force. You put up a sign "drinking water" where you know the water contains poison -- a victim drinks it -- you have committed murder. Or, more on topic, you are asked in court if you ever had sex with Miss Lewinsky...)

Can a right be violated through any means other than physical force or the threat of physical force?

I must say that I do not like the qualifier "physical" here (even though I know Dr. Peikoff and perhaps even Miss Rand have used it). I am not sure what its exact intended meaning is. If it is meant as "any of the types forces identified by physics (i.e., gravitational force, magnetic force, etc.)" then of course it is necessarily involved in all violation of rights, since physical force is necessarily involved in any human interaction whatsoever.

The only implementation of the right to life is property.

So I have a right to build a wall around you when you're out camping in an unowned forest, effectively imprisoning you?

How does "sanctity of the mind" apply to either life or property?

Ouch, it looks like you'll need to re-read the whole of OPAR. Especially the second section of Chapter 6: "Reason as Man's Basic Means of Survival."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the basis of your view of rights? Then my job is easy, because the basis of the Objectivist position on rights is precisely what you call the sanctity of the mind. You would do well to (re-)read the final section of Chapter 8 of OPAR, "The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil." As Dr. Peikoff explains, the initiation of force is evil because it is an attempt to force a person's mind. THAT is what makes it the opposite of reason, and THAT is the basis for a ban on all its forms under a proper government.

Are you equating someone displaying pornography, or anything that someone does not "consent" to seeing the same as physical force? I mean, is your whole point here that because an image might make you think of sex, which you say is a sexual activity, then somehow it's immoral because the image is forcing you to think of sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Projecting an image on your home is an action, [...] "Projecting" an image on your retina is metaphysical

Clarify "action" vs. "metaphysical."

it is open to moral debate.

This topic is about the legal aspects of abnormal behavior, not the moral ones.

no one controls where the light waves reflecting on them go and no one is required to know, much less cater to, whatever your whim determines you want or do not want to see.

I find it remarkable that you consider the desire to maintain one's sexual integrity a whim. Out of curiosity, does this only apply to sex or also to other kinds of integrity? Do you think Howard Roark's desire to maintain his artistic integrity was a whim--something he couldn't possibly have a rational justification for?

If you don't want to see, close your eyes, look away, walk away.

Standard libertarian response. Let the victim walk away, without being entitled to any compensation or even the right to complain.

If I infringe on a trademark or a copyright, do you tell its owner that if he doesn't like what I'm doing, he should simply close his eyes, look away, and walk away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarify "action" vs. "metaphysical."

A choice exists in my setting up a projector to beam porn on to your wall. A choice does not exist as to whether I will be visible or invisible to you.

This topic is about the legal aspects of abnormal behavior, not the moral ones.

And law should only exist to protect rights. Which is why your failure to explain how seeing someone naked violates any of your rights is blatant.

I find it remarkable that you consider the desire to maintain one's sexual integrity a whim. Out of curiosity, does this only apply to sex or also to other kinds of integrity? Do you think Howard Roark's desire to maintain his artistic integrity was a whim--something he couldn't possibly have a rational justification for?

Did Howard Roark sue Keating for being "forced" to see his gross buildings? Did he argue that such a disgraceful image image was violating his integrity? No. Because Howard Roark knows that he does not have a right not to see something. Even if he doesn't like it.

Standard libertarian response. Let the victim walk away, without being entitled to any compensation or even the right to complain.

We are establishing if there is a victim. In this case, you have failed to do so thus far.

If I infringe on a trademark or a copyright, do you tell its owner that if he doesn't like what I'm doing, he should simply close his eyes, look away, and walk away?

If the difference between taking someones property and simply being is lost on you, that would explain why you fail to apply the proper principles here.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the basis of your view of rights? Then my job is easy, because the basis of the Objectivist position on rights is precisely what you call the sanctity of the mind. You would do well to (re-)read the final section of Chapter 8 of OPAR, "The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil." As Dr. Peikoff explains, the initiation of force is evil because it is an attempt to force a person's mind. THAT is what makes it the opposite of reason, and THAT is the basis for a ban on all its forms under a proper government.

OK - I think this misunderstanding is my fault now, because I coined a term without fully explaining it. What I meant by "sanctity of the mind" was a right to have a clean mind untouched by unwanted information or sensory input. The way you're referencing it is the right to have "freedom of the mind" (ie. the freedom to use and exercise reason). They are two seperate concepts - one is a true right (the basis of all other rights as you identified) and the other is a premise which you have been using in your posts.

A proper life entails sexual integrity.

This is a half-formed assertion because it fails to mention that sexual integrity is a process sustained through self-selection of sexual activities and sex and can only be violated through the use or threat of physical force. Self-selection requires volition and necessarily control of one's mind and body - a point which you've failed to consistently applied, as I will demonstrate below.

It is not information we are talking about here; it is the induction of a sexual activity in a person against his will. You need to have a very strange definition of "information" for it to be the first concept to come to your mind when you see a sexual image.

As I have mentioned in my other posts (please re-read them if you don't recall) you have eliminated volition in your reference to initiation of a sexual activity - in fact you have been advocating sexual determinism. A sexual activity cannot be initiated without the consent of the person it is being experienced by - meaning it is impossible to be engaged in a sexual activity by viewing a sexual image without an intention to be engaged in such. You in fact supported this very concept by including in your definition of sexual activity by the use of the word "deliberate." To say that man can be made (without the use of physical force) to participate in a sexual activity he doesn't wish to participate in, is to say in fact that he has no will of his own, that he is powerless beside his biological impulses, that any medium detected and integrated by his senses can force him to act against his own will. Either man has volition or he doesn't - in all aspects of his life. Sex or a sexual activity is not equivalent to a need for food or oxygen (which even the greatest exercise of volition against is futile) but primarily a psychological need - which can firmly be controlled by a person's own will.

I must say that I do not like the qualifier "physical" here (even though I know Dr. Peikoff and perhaps even Miss Rand have used it). I am not sure what its exact intended meaning is. If it is meant as "any of the types forces identified by physics (i.e., gravitational force, magnetic force, etc.)" then of course it is necessarily involved in all violation of rights, since physical force is necessarily involved in any human interaction whatsoever.

This is the reason of our miscommunication. The qualifier "physical" is used in reference to force because it is impossible to force a mind directly. Meaning - no amount of purely sensory input controlled and delimited by a person's body can sufficiently cause him to act against his own will. The only way a person's rights can be violated is by restricting his freedom to implement his reason through the proper use of his body. The body may be regarded as the safeguard of the mind - which is why you don't have a right to the "sanctity of the mind." As long as you have freedom of the mind and control over one's body "sanctity of the mind" can only be achieved through personal initiative and volition. It is impossible to have one's mind affected by anything save through physical force. This is why Dr. Peikoff and Miss Rand empahsize the use of the word "physical" - because there is no "mental" force able to affect humans.

Ouch, it looks like you'll need to re-read the whole of OPAR. Especially the second section of Chapter 6: "Reason as Man's Basic Means of Survival."

Actually, I have yet to read OPAR. Please don't dismiss me as uninformed though - I have read all of Miss Rand's non-fiction which I assume has given me an adequate understanding of Objectivist Ethics (albeit without Dr. Peikoff's added insights). I do plan on reading his book - but I don't think it is a pre-requisite for continuing this discussion. Since Objectivism is defined as the sum of all of the major writings of Ayn Rand and OPAR is an interpretation on those primary materials, it is sufficient to have read and understood the primary material to understand Objectivism on the level we are discussing it at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you equating someone displaying pornography, or anything that someone does not "consent" to seeing the same as physical force? I mean, is your whole point here that because an image might make you think of sex, which you say is a sexual activity, then somehow it's immoral because the image is forcing you to think of sex?

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 perform 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.

For example, to take our favorite girl in bikini scenario, her appearance may prompt you to think of what it would be like to be in bed with her, but not without your volitional choice to do so. While there may be many people who invariably think of sex when they see a girl in a bikini, they do it as a result of their choices and value-judgments. People with other priorities might think of very different things; for example, a proud father may be reminded of her daughter who wants to be an Olympic swimmer.

On the other hand, if you unexpectedly see a movie showing people having sex, then you have no choice: what you see already IS sex, not just a potential cue that gives you a chance to think of sex if you want to. It literally puts an idea into your mind by force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A choice exists in my setting up a projector to beam porn on to your wall. A choice does not exist as to

Ah, so it's about choice. (Off topic - Please note that "an action" is not a synonym of "volitional" and "metaphysical" is not a synonym of "non-volitional." An action can be non-chosen--e.g. a reflex, or breathing--and I think the second term you were thinking of was 'metaphysically given.')

whether I will be visible or invisible to you.

But a choice exists as to whether you will suddenly and deliberately take off your clothes without warning me when you know full well that I'm standing right in front of you and looking in your direction and not expecting you to disrobe.

And law should only exist to protect rights. Which is why your failure to explain how seeing someone naked violates any of your rights is blatant.

I never claimed, and never would claim, that seeing someone naked violates my rights. An action on my part cannot violate my rights. It is your deliberate removal of your clothes while being fully aware of the consequences on my mental state that violates my rights.

Did Howard Roark sue Keating for being "forced" to see his gross buildings? Did he argue that such a disgraceful image image was violating his integrity? No. Because Howard Roark knows that he does not have a right not to see something. Even if he doesn't like it.

Already addressed here .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so it's about choice. (Off topic - Please note that "an action" is not a synonym of "volitional" and "metaphysical" is not a synonym of "non-volitional." An action can be non-chosen--e.g. a reflex, or breathing--and I think the second term you were thinking of was 'metaphysically given.')

But a choice exists as to whether you will suddenly and deliberately take off your clothes without warning me when you know full well that I'm standing right in front of you and looking in your direction and not expecting you to disrobe.

I never claimed, and never would claim, that seeing someone naked violates my rights. An action on my part cannot violate my rights. It is your deliberate removal of your clothes while being fully aware of the consequences on my mental state that violates my rights.

This further reinforces my evaluation that you are promoting psychological and sexual determinism. Your "mental state" cannot be affected by anything other than your own volition. Mentally, you assimilate and integrate sensory input and through a conscious process seperate existents and concepts. It is impossible for your mind to automatically arrive at a mental state without the aid of your conscious volitional will or through the use of a physical alteration of your brain chemistry or physiology.

Capitalism Forever -

I have identified the root of your argument - please address my post above this one, which detailed it. Arguing with mrocktor over superficial issues will needlessly prolong this discussion.

mrocktor -

If CF can address the points I've laid out, either accepting the validity of my logic or refuting it then this discussion can be very simply resolved. All of the issues you're bringing up only further muddle the discussion because they have been brought up previously and distract the focus from the main issue of physical force vs. "mental force" and sexual determinism. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant by "sanctity of the mind" was a right to have a clean mind untouched by unwanted information or sensory input.

OK, there is definitely no right to that.

The way you're referencing it is the right to have "freedom of the mind" (ie. the freedom to use and exercise reason). They are two seperate concepts - one is a true right (the basis of all other rights as you identified) and the other is a premise which you have been using in your posts.

Check your premises regarding my premises. :pirate: I think you're overgeneralizing: I say "freedom from unwanted sexual images" and you think I say "freedom from unwanted images." The fact that I own my retina does not give me a right of consent to every image that anyone is ever going to cause to appear on it, just like the fact that I own my wall does not give me a right of consent to every photon that anyone will ever direct at it. Some of them will affect my rights, and others will not; I have a right of consent to the former, while I have to acquiesce in the latter whether I like them or not.

Shining a headlight on my wall does not affect my rights. But projecting the letters M, U, R, D, E, R, E, R, on it does; it affects the same right that any other form of defamation does. (I'm not sure if anyone has actually named the right in question--I would call it a right to accurate representation, i.e. a ban on misrepresenting a person's nature.)

As I have mentioned in my other posts (please re-read them if you don't recall) you have eliminated volition in your reference to initiation of a sexual activity - in fact you have been advocating sexual determinism. A sexual activity cannot be initiated without the consent of the person it is being experienced by

So you wouldn't even count being raped as a sexual activity? After all, rape (at least the criminal variant) is quite definitely initiated without the victim's consent!

To say that man can be made (without the use of physical force) to participate in a sexual activity he doesn't wish to participate in

Ah, OK, you make the use of physical force a condition. But, no matter what is meant by "physical," I would say that if fraud--the giving of misinformation--can qualify as physical force (which Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff seem to agree it does) then so can the showing of sexual images.

is to say in fact that he has no will of his own, that he is powerless beside his biological impulses, that any medium detected and integrated by his senses can force him to act against his own will.

This is perhaps what some religious types think, but it is most emphatically not what I think. May I remind you of what I wrote earlier:

For example, to take our favorite girl in bikini scenario, her appearance may prompt you to think of what it would be like to be in bed with her, but not without your volitional choice to do so. While there may be many people who invariably think of sex when they see a girl in a bikini, they do it as a result of their choices and value-judgments. People with other priorities might think of very different things; for example, a proud father may be reminded of her daughter who wants to be an Olympic swimmer.

On the other hand, if you unexpectedly see a movie showing people having sex, then you have no choice: what you see already IS sex, not just a potential cue that gives you a chance to think of sex if you want to. It literally puts an idea into your mind by force.

Sex or a sexual activity is not equivalent to a need for food or oxygen (which even the greatest exercise of volition against is futile) but primarily a psychological need - which can firmly be controlled by a person's own will.

It's not the fact that it's a need that makes you think of sex when you see sex. It is the fact that what you see IS sex. And when you see something very closely related to sex, it is the fact that it is very closely related to sex that makes you think of sex.

This is the reason of our miscommunication. The qualifier "physical" is used in reference to force because it is impossible to force a mind directly. Meaning - no amount of purely sensory input controlled and delimited by a person's body can sufficiently cause him to act against his own will.

But you would agree, wouldn't you, that some kinds of sensory input cannot be controlled and delimited by your body? For example, smelling a rotten egg can make you throw up against your will. Or being punched on your knee can make you jerk your leg without choosing to do so. - etc.

Actually, I have yet to read OPAR. Please don't dismiss me as uninformed though - I have read all of Miss Rand's non-fiction which I assume has given me an adequate understanding of Objectivist Ethics

Yes, Miss Rand's works should definitely be enough for understanding Objectivism. OPAR is really just a summary (except for the epilogue). I referred you to chapter 6 of OPAR because I misunderstood your use of "sanctity of the mind," so with that cleared up, the issue is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, there is definitely no right to that.

I'm glad we've finally resolved that issue.

Check your premises regarding my premises. :pirate: I think you're overgeneralizing: I say "freedom from unwanted sexual images" and you think I say "freedom from unwanted images." The fact that I own my retina does not give me a right of consent to every image that anyone is ever going to cause to appear on it, just like the fact that I own my wall does not give me a right of consent to every photon that anyone will ever direct at it. Some of them will affect my rights, and others will not; I have a right of consent to the former, while I have to acquiesce in the latter whether I like them or not.

Ok - so then the next step is to determine what the difference is between a regular image and a sexual image. Determining whether there is in fact a qualifying difference will determine whether it is applicable to the principle of non-consent in regard to non-sexual images.

Shining a headlight on my wall does not affect my rights. But projecting the letters M, U, R, D, E, R, E, R, on it does; it affects the same right that any other form of defamation does. (I'm not sure if anyone has actually named the right in question--I would call it a right to accurate representation, i.e. a ban on misrepresenting a person's nature.)

That is a very interesting concept. "Accurate representation" in this case would be similar to libel. But without going off on a tangent (maybe a thread split?) I think it would be interesting to see the justification of such a right and a reasoning behind it supporting it's derivation from the right to property and the right to life.

Ah, OK, you make the use of physical force a condition. But, no matter what is meant by "physical," I would say that if fraud--the giving of misinformation--can qualify as physical force (which Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff seem to agree it does) then so can the showing of sexual images.

They are not equivalent. Fraud can be considered an intiation of force only if a person acts in response to the misinformation. If I marketed a cleaning fluid as a beverage and you bought it and were poisoned, it would be a violation of your rights because you had made the transaction under false pretenses and resulted in bodily harm. A sexual image, however, unless marketed as a children's video or anything other than it is, would not be equivalent to fraud because no misinformation was given.

On the other hand, if you unexpectedly see a movie showing people having sex, then you have no choice: what you see already IS sex, not just a potential cue that gives you a chance to think of sex if you want to. It literally puts an idea into your mind by force.

I see. So you're saying that by viewing the images of sex, your mind integrates those images and causes the concept of "sex" to come to mind. I agree with you completely here. However, that fact that those images caused you to think of the concept of sex doesn't mean that it was the cause of a sexual activity. Remember - even as you defined it, a "sexual activity" has to be deliberate (ie. with the intention of that result). Even so, the use of the word "force" is misleading here. It isn't force - it is a simple reaction to the image.

But you would agree, wouldn't you, that some kinds of sensory input cannot be controlled and delimited by your body? For example, smelling a rotten egg can make you throw up against your will. Or being punched on your knee can make you jerk your leg without choosing to do so. - etc.

Ok - let's differentiate between your two examples. One is deliberate use of force against your body which produces a reaction. That is legitimate and unavoidable due to the way the human body is constructed. The smell of rotten eggs on the other hand, can be controlled and delimited by the mind - I've done so many times actually. I think a very crucial distinction must be made between physical force and other reactions - one may prompt a reaction but can be controlled, such as the smell of rotten eggs or sexual images, the other restricts and limits control of your body which cannot be overrided by the mind. That is the key issue here and that is why sexual images aren't applicable to consent. The fact that the response isn't automatic and unavoidable means that you have the option of overriding any prompts it may cause you to have. I think I've finally penetrated to the heart of this issue. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a choice exists as to whether you will suddenly and deliberately take off your clothes without warning me when you know full well that I'm standing right in front of you and looking in your direction and not expecting you to disrobe.

I never claimed, and never would claim, that seeing someone naked violates my rights. An action on my part cannot violate my rights. It is your deliberate removal of your clothes while being fully aware of the consequences on my mental state that violates my rights.

No one is responsible for what you expect or fail to expect. No one is responsible for your "mental state". There is no right being violated.

If CF can address the points I've laid out, either accepting the validity of my logic or refuting it then this discussion can be very simply resolved. All of the issues you're bringing up only further muddle the discussion because they have been brought up previously and distract the focus from the main issue of physical force vs. "mental force" and sexual determinism. Thank you.

I think your identification of the fact that he is operating on the idea that one can "force" a thought was very pertinent - however I'd dispute the claim that the main issue is this, and not that he has yet to properly define which right he is claiming to be defending. I stand by my previous statement - when you boil it down he is defending a right not to be offended.

Perhaps both are too interrelated to discuss separately. In any case do proceed with your argument, I'll stand aside unless there is something too important to leave unsaid.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by my previous statement - when you boil it down he is defending a right not to be offended.

He doesn't really mean offended. He's saying that an image may force a line of thought on a person that they may not want to think about and equating that to initiation of force.

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...