Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

[Capitalism Forever]

Unanswered question:

You have initiated the indirect force of fraud. The violation occurs in the fact that you are using the reputation of Coca-Cola in order to sell your product, and you did so without their permission, you have essential stolen product from them: their effort that went into creating the reputation.

And in what way is that force?

Anyone care to address this?

[Capitalism Forever]

Now your claim of a right to not view sexual material has been officially refuted on all grounds, Capitalism Forever.

I am ignoring mrocktor's posts, so you'll have to enlighten me as to who exactly he refuted me. Did he say that a mystic demon in his mind told him that I was in fact advocating a right not to be offended, and that this refutes everything I said? How novel of him!

By personal integrity above I was referring to any of a man's choices on how to conduct his life.

And how on earth could seeing a crucifix breach that ??

[Capitalism Forever]

And CF: No one here is advocating that a man has no rights whilst on a another man's property, only that he does not, at all, posses the right to not have to percieve that which is in front of his consciousness.

And what I am saying is that there are certain things that you do not have a right to put in front of another man's consciousness without his consent.

[Maarten]

I think fraud, in general, is an intiation of force against someone because you are interfering with their ability to act rationally and judge situations based on the facts. When you are offering someone false information then their actions taken based on that information will also likely be false, and I think in this way you are hampering their ability to live succesfully.

Does that address your question, CF?

[Capitalism Forever]

Beyond the initial impression that may (and probably will) remind you of sex

It is that initial impression that I am arguing about.

I am talking about the split second when you first see the image, before you have a chance to decide not to look at it.

You may wonder why I make such a fuss about a split second. Well, let me first note that I am not making the fuss; this thread would never have existed if it weren't for you guys arguing that Clinton's behavior was rightful. But the more important answer to give is that I am not a pragmatist. If taxation were reduced to one penny per person per year, I would still be opposed to that tax and I would still say it was a violation of my rights. I would still make a fuss argue if someone insisted it was fine.

[Capitalism Forever]

I think fraud, in general, is an intiation of force against someone because you are interfering with their ability to act rationally and judge situations based on the facts. When you are offering someone false information then their actions taken based on that information will also likely be false, and I think in this way you are hampering their ability to live succesfully.

Does that address your question, CF?

Oh yes, it definitely does. IAmMetaphysical, do you agree with Maarten's statement above?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Yes I do, but I think it misses the point of your example. In your example the force is your use of Coca-Cola's product without their permission, that is theft essentially, and that is force.

The right to not have people put things in front of your consciousness is the right to not have to percieve. Please tell me how this is derived from the nature of man.

A man has the rgith to do whatever he pleases, short of initiating force. What you are proposing is that one man must ask permission of another man to act a certain way when that other man is present. essentially you are saying that the first man does not act by right, but but permission. Please resolve this.

Edited September 14, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[Capitalism Forever]

I think fraud, in general, is an intiation of force against someone because you are interfering with their ability to act rationally and judge situations based on the facts. When you are offering someone false information then their actions taken based on that information will also likely be false, and I think in this way you are hampering their ability to live succesfully.

Does that address your question, CF?

(emphasis added)

Oh yes, it definitely does. IAmMetaphysical, do you agree with Maarten's statement above?

Yes I do

OK, glad to hear that, because Maarten has mentioned something very important--see the two words I put in bold. The ability to live successfully (i.e. to live qua man) is the true standard for rights. Rights are not there to allow a life without "harm" as some posters have seemed to believe (although they often do protect you from harm), nor to let you indulge in arbitrary whims as long as you don't "hurt" others (even though they often do accomplish that). Rights are there to protect rational people (those who want to live successfully, to live qua man) from the irrationality of those who choose not to pursue a successful life.

Rights are in essence a rational man's way of saying: "Don't stand in my way!"

And therefore, force is when you "stand in the way" of a person who is pursuing a goal worthy of a rational man--such as producing values and keeping them for himself (right to property), expressing his convictions (right to free speech), choosing whom to deal with and on what terms (right to free association, right to free trade)--or choosing his sexual activities for himself (right to sexual integrity).

You cannot escape the standard of a rational man pursuing rational objectives when defining rights--not if you want to arrive at the Objectivist version and not the libertarian one. And, once you have adopted that standard, you cannot escape Chapter 9 of OPAR and its section entitled "SEX AS METAPHYSICAL."

[IAmMetaphysical]

Yes, the rights of man are the rights for him to act as man qua man, but I think you miss the target here, in more than one way.

First: if it were true that rights only protect those that are attempting to be "moral" i.e. qua man, then drugs would have to be outlawed, since those that indulged in "un-qua man" activities would have no legal protection of rights.

The protection of rights is the protection of a man to live qua man qua chooser. The right to live, for man, is the right to the free excercise of his own judgement--whether or not that judgement is consistent with reality or not. It is not the right to the product of a rational pursuit, but only the ability to attempt that rational pursuit and the accomplished products of those attempts.

Second: this has been brought up before but since you keep referring to it, I will comment on this "sexual integrity" thing. I apologize for not making a comment earlier because I felt it was such a non-essential and missapplied principle that it didn't merit recognition.

Basically, the key here is that viewing a sexual act is not a sexual activity unless the viewer turns it into that. Perception is perception, everything from that is volitional. You argued this point yourself when commenting on the crucifix:

But it seems you agree that the crucifix can inevitably make you think something. Once you have noticed the crucifix, you have no choice about supposing that the guy must be a Christian. What you do then--whether you begin to fantasize about being crucified, or to think about how you'll present Objectivism to him, or whatever else--is your choice.

{emphasis added}

This same thing applies to viewing pornographic material. If one looked at a picture of bestiality for instance, even though the response would be automatized, it would still be his choice whether or not he got excitement out of it, digust, or amusement from such an image. The evaluation is totally volitional and stems from his integrated value system. So when you look at a depiction of sex and feel horny, the fact that for you that might be a "sexual activity" the responsibility for the existence of that sexual activity lies in your choice, hence no violation of your integrity occurs, nor is your right to choose your sexual activities infringed. (this is assuming that viewing pornography and becoming aroused is a "sexual activity")

[Capitalism Forever]

First: if it were true that rights only protect those that are attempting to be "moral" i.e. qua man, then drugs would have to be outlawed, since those that indulged in "un-qua man" activities would have no legal protection of rights.

I address this in my latest post in the Defamation thread . A drug addict is like the guy who just sits on the racetrack in my analogy there.

The protection of rights is the protection of a man to live qua man qua chooser. The right to live, for man, is the right to the free excercise of his own judgement--whether or not that judgement is consistent with reality or not.

Sure.

It is not the right to the product of a rational pursuit, but only the ability to attempt that rational pursuit and the accomplished products of those attempts.

Exactly.

Basically, the key here is that viewing a sexual act is not a sexual activity unless the viewer turns it into that. Perception is perception, everything from that is volitional.

But you agree that the perception itself is non-volitional, right? And the nature of the human sexual system is such that even the perception of a sexual act constitutes a sexual activity.

A good example to prove this is a form of torture used in Communist prisons, explained to me by a guide in the House of Terror Museum. The female employees of the State Protection Agency would sexually excite the prisoners, after which their erect sexual organs were mutilated with the help of a glass tube. It's clear that these people didn't want to be sexually excited in that situation, but the goons succeeded nonetheless.

[IAmMetaphysical]

This disagreement lies with perception being a sexual activity. And even if it were, a man would not lose his sexual integrity by means of non-volitional actions.

[Capitalism Forever]

And even if it were, a man would not lose his sexual integrity by means of non-volitional actions.

Why not? "Sexual integrity" does not refer to a virtue (it's not a qualified form of the virtue of integrity); it refers to a state, just like "physical integrity" refers to the state of your body. As in: "If you accidentally injure yourself, your physical integrity has been affected."

[mrocktor]

Grant an invalid concept and it will bite you in the posterior...

Sex is an act, a body is an existent. Physical integrity is valid - it refers to the state of an existent. Sexual integrity refers to? The state of one's mind with regards to the topic? How is the comparison valid at all?

CF just dances around the point and you continue playing the tune. What right is violated by perception of sexual material? No answer. What is "sexual integrity"? No answer. Why does one have a right to it? No answer.

mrocktor

Edited September 19, 2006 by mrocktor

[IAmMetaphysical]

mrock, you are right. I was assuming he meant "sexual integrity" as he defined it: the ability to choose your sexual activities. If he makes perception a sexual activity he thereby makes it impossible to ever attain sexual integrity because he undermines the volitional aspect of choosing sexual activities. The inability to attain or keep said "sexual integrity" then is not the fault of anyone but the nature of that concept when it includes perception. The fault lies in the perceiver., so no rights are or can be violated.

[Capitalism Forever]

mrock, you are right. I was assuming he meant "sexual integrity" as he defined it: the ability to choose your sexual activities. If he makes perception a sexual activity he thereby makes it impossible to ever attain sexual integrity because he undermines the volitional aspect of choosing sexual activities. The inability to attain or keep said "sexual integrity" then is not the fault of anyone but the nature of that concept when it includes perception. The fault lies in the perceiver., so no rights are or can be violated.

Nice of you to give a response to mrock's post (I think), but will you respond to mine?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Mrock answered it already.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am ignoring his posts, so you'll have to tell me what he said.

[JASKN]

I am ignoring mrocktor's posts, so you'll have to enlighten me as to who exactly he refuted me.

I am ignoring his posts, so you'll have to tell me what he said.

Just as a side note, I think it's pretty annoying how you're the only person that has a problem with mrocktor in this thread, yet you are more than happy to pass the problem on to anybody else when it becomes inconvenient for you to ignore him.

If you want to respond to him, try this: stop ignoring him.

[Capitalism Forever]

Stop lecturing me.

[Capitalism Forever]

IAmMetaphysical, I understand it if you find this kind of thing frustrating, but as I wrote in my post giving my reasons for ignoring him , mrocktor is literally out of this discussion as far as I'm concerned, so a reference to one of his posts is like a broken link for me--I cannot "follow" it.

mrocktor's entire activity before I put him on my ignore list had consisted of declaring repeatedly that I was advocating "a right not to be offended." That is a complete strawman, and I explained that to him several times and in several ways, but he simply ignored what I said and continued to parrot the same accusation. You'll probably understand that I had no choice in that situation but to dismiss him as making no sense.

If he is saying the same thing again, then please read my earlier responses to him and you'll see that he's wrong. If he's saying something new and you think it is a legitimate, logical response to my position, I'd appreciate it if you relayed it to me in your own words.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Sex is an act, a body is an existent. Physical integrity is valid - it refers to the state of an existent. Sexual integrity refers to? The state of one's mind with regards to the topic? How is the comparison valid at all?

CF just dances around the point and you continue playing the tune. What right is violated by perception of sexual material? No answer. What is "sexual integrity"? No answer. Why does one have a right to it? No answer.

That is what he said. I agree.

[JASKN]

Stop lecturing me.

Are you kidding me? That was my reaction to your interaction with me, not just some general advice outside the scope of my business. Edited September 21, 2006 by JASKN

[Capitalism Forever]

Physical integrity is valid - it refers to the state of an existent. Sexual integrity refers to? The state of one's mind with regards to the topic?

Both refer to my state. I am an existent; my body and my mind are attributes of that existent.

You sound like you think that my body is an "existent" and therefore deserves serious consideration, but my mind is something other than an existent, and is to be dismissed as irrelevant--perhaps as a mere collection of arbitrary whims, or something like that. I don't know if this is what you mean, but to the extent I can interpret your words at all, this is the meaning I can glean from them. If that is not what you think, please do correct me. If it is, you should revise your premises, since these ideas are not Objectivism but materialism.

Specifically, sexual integrity refers to the sexual activities you have experienced. Sex is the highest expression of love. If all your sexual activities have been with the person you love the most, your sexual integrity is intact; otherwise, it is breached.

What right is violated by perception of sexual material? No answer.

Come on. I have stated the answer several times: the right to sexual integrity. I had had a much higher estimation of your faculty of logic before you began agreeing with mrocktor!

What is "sexual integrity"? No answer.

As far as I remember, I was never asked this specific question. You can see my answer above.

Why does one have a right to it? No answer.

I stated the answer to this quite early on in the thread: Sex is a crucially important part of a rational person's life; you cannot be really said to own your life unless you own the choice over your sexual activities.

[mrocktor]

Yay! Argument by proxy!

Both refer to my state. I am an existent; my body and my mind are attributes of that existent.

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.

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.

Specifically, sexual integrity refers to the sexual activities you have experienced. Sex is the highest expression of love. If all your sexual activities have been with the person you love the most, your sexual integrity is intact; otherwise, it is breached.

Sex is the highest expression of love. Rationale please (and yes, I have read the relevant material by Peikoff and Rand herself - I don't buy it, this is just stated not derived from reality by a process of logic).

Second: a breach of this integrity (still undefined - even if you grant his assumption) depends on who you have sex with and not with whether you had sex by your own free choice. This would make all sex immoral when the person you love the most is not available. Interesting.

Third: the definition then is "sexual integrity is having sex only with whom you love the most". I'd argue for "only by free choice" - which is derived directly from the right to make your own choices. We will bog down on what constitutes "having sex" or "sexual activity" - as IAmMetaphysical discovered.

Come on. I have stated the answer several times: the right to sexual integrity.

As seen above, such a right only makes sense when derived from the right to exercise reason. Reason is exercised based on percepts, you cannot argue a right not to perceive because perception is non-volitional and precedes reason.

When shown pornography or someones genitalia you are free to reason, to condemn, to act appropriately. Your rights have not been violated.

As far as I remember, I was never asked this specific question. You can see my answer above.

I stated the answer to this quite early on in the thread: Sex is a crucially important part of a rational person's life; you cannot be really said to own your life unless you own the choice over your sexual activities.

Rights are not determined by what is important. They are determined with regard to what is necessary to live rationally. To argue that one cannot live rationally without screening of what one perceives is to argue that rational life is impossible.

mrocktor

Edited September 21, 2006 by mrocktor

[IAmMetaphysical]

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.

As for CF: our debate remains in the area then of what is "sexual activity" and what is "sexual integrity". As for rights; as mrock pointed out: rights are not derived from living succesfully, but as living as man, which means the right to excercise volition. Perception is not a violation of that EVER.