Legal foundation for public decency, lewdness, nudity

[Capitalism Forever]

the idea of a judge asking a defendent in a court proceeding "now come, Mr. Jones, you didn't really think that Miss Smith wanted your advances?" and off to jail he goes - sends shudders down my spine.

Oh, advances are something very different from mail. They are a form of verbal interaction, and the general presumption with verbal interaction necessarily must be that the addressee consents to being interacted with, otherwise we would find ourselves in the infinite cycle of asking for permission to ask for permission to ask for permission to ... etc.

And another very imporant point that has to be made (which I have taken for granted so far) is that these are all civil matters, so the only liability the defendant can incur is a restitution for whatever damage the plaintiff may have sustained. Sending anyone to jail over any of the matters discussed in this thread is absolutely out of the question.

[Inspector]

I think what may have happened here is a misunderstanding of my position as saying that one should dismiss as false anything that is said by anyone else because they are someone other than oneself. My position is that the intellectual status of an expert is not evidence of its truth, or its falsity, or its arbitrariness, one must find out which category a statement falls into by first hand asessment of the statement involved. To subsitute this asessment with an asessment of the author of the statement is to substitute others for reality and become second-handed.

IF you are saying that I should consider her statement because it regards an important part of human life, then I agree. If you are saying that I should consider it because Ayn Rand said it, then I disagree. I am curious to find out her opinion on a lot of things because I respect her mind, but that does not mean that I consider what she says as being closer to truth before I consider the matter for myself. Does that clear things up?

The first paragraph is a straw man. You're continuing to conflate the idea of something's truth vs falsehood (i.e. its relation to the facts) and the amount of consideration, respect, investigation, etc is owed to an authority.

The second paragraph is the completion of the straw man.

To sum up: an expert's opinion is only as good as its relation to the perceptually self evident and as an opinion.

A good summary, and you're completely wrong. What you're saying is that an expert's opinion qua expert is worthless - that you refuse to give it any consideration beyond your evaluation of the statement itself. To do so is to completely annihilate expertise altogether.

I'd ask you if you were serious - if you really meant that and you would not even think Ayn Rand's statements deserved some investigation on your part, but your actions on this board demonstrate that you are serious. A given statement to you is equally worth considering or not worth considering no matter who said it - Ayn Rand or a street derelict.

This is a misinterpretation of independence.

[Inspector]

Ultimately, far from being independent, what Meta's position blanks out is one's own evaluation of the authority making the statement. This isn't independence - it is rationalistic anti-dogmatism.

[edit: correction, that should be rationalistic]

Edited May 14, 2007 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

I have tried time and time again to explain how I am not advocating the complete dismissal of consideration toward Ayn Rand. I take what she says seriosuly because I know that she did not throw around ideas lightly, not because I think she is probably right on whatever she says. That means that I cannot treat what she said as my own knowledge, without first assessing it myself. To say that it is possibly true, or probably true, is a statement of knowledge. To state that it is a "problem" to be in disagreement with Ayn Rand is to say that my first-hand knowledge of reality and Ayn Rand's statements of her first-hand knowledge of reality represent a contradiction IN MY KNOWLEDGE.

I have considered this argument very seriously and at great length, and revisit the debate over and over in my head. I do not blank it out, I have found it to be false. This is not anti-dogmatism as I am not rejecting considering it because I wish not to agree with her, I have considered it and continue to do so. Your implication of my dishonesty is uncalled for and without ground. What I do not do, is put my own first-hand experience of reality into doubt SIMPLY BECAUSE Ayn Rand disagreed with me. MY first-hand experience and understanding of reality is the standard of whether or not I consider something true or false or arbitrary, not the first-hand knowledge of others. THAT is independant thought.

What you're saying is that an expert's opinion qua expert is worthless

An expert's opinion qua opinion WITHOUT my first-hand understanding of the material of that opinion is worthless to me because it doesn't represent true knowledge on my behalf. Think about it for a sec, how could I know they were an expert unless I knew something about the thing they were an expert on? And if I knew that much, why couldn't I understand the material myself, after they have related it to my level of understanding? IF that then is the case and they have related it to my understanding, if it conflicts with my previously held knowledge of reality, why should I accept it? Why should I automatically throw out my previous understanding about reality and substitute theirs, without even understanding it myself? Do you prescribe such a sabotage of my mind? Why should I automatically assume that I am wrong and that they are right? What kind of lack of self-esteem would that reveal in me, if I was so easy to abandon the work of my mind in favor of another's?

Now I am not saying that I think I am infallible and that I can't be wrong. Ayn Rand disagreeing with me is not evidence that I MIGHT be wrong, that evidence would have to come when I arrive at a contradiction within my own hierarchy of knowledge, not when my knowledge contradicts another's. Ayn Rand disagreeing with me is not even evidence that I COULD be wrong, that evidence is the fact that human free will is fallible.

that you refuse to give it any consideration beyond your evaluation of the statement itself. To do so is to completely annihilate expertise altogether. Bold Mine

Are you recommending that my appraoch should instead be directed toward the expert and not toward reality? Should my appraoch be to assess the character and intelligence of the expert and then take whatever they say as gospel? Or by consideration do you mean that I should evaluate the statement and relate it to reality, and then doubt myself because I don't agree with the expert?

What do you think I should do?

[Seeker]

Maybe this was done earlier and I missed it, but from what I have read so far I am prepared to define the right in question. Here it is, based on my understanding of the pro-right position. It is not the right to have social conventions followed as default presumptions, nor is it the right not to look and listen, nor is it the right to be free from disgust, loathing, or offense. It is:

The right to seclusion in regards to sex.

Does that sound correct to everyone? If it is right for man to experience sex only in seclusion, and seeing pornography or sex acts is a sexual experience, then it follows that open displays of pornography and sex acts can be banned. (Note that for clarity I have replaced "private" with "seclusion" and "public" with "open" to avoid the nettlesome and irrelevant issue of property ownership).

The first part of the argument is rather easy to accept, the second I am still chewing on ("seeing pornography or sex acts is a sexual experience").

Edited - for clarity.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Seeker

[Inspector]

I have tried time and time again to explain how I am not advocating the complete dismissal of consideration toward Ayn Rand. I take what she says seriosuly because I know that she did not throw around ideas lightly, not because I think she is probably right on whatever she says. That means that I cannot treat what she said as my own knowledge, without first assessing it myself. To say that it is possibly true, or probably true, is a statement of knowledge.

Again, with the straw man. All I have said is that because you know she did not throw ideas around lightly that her ideas be given serious consideration and a more extensive examination before dismissing them than you would give the random ravings of a bum on the street. That her endorsement of an idea was a fact of reality that you should be interested in.

To state that it is a "problem" to be in disagreement with Ayn Rand is to say that my first-hand knowledge of reality and Ayn Rand's statements of her first-hand knowledge of reality represent a contradiction IN MY KNOWLEDGE.

Since when?

Are you recommending that my appraoch should instead be directed toward the expert and not toward reality?

Why the false dichotomy? Is not her expertise a fact of reality?

Should my appraoch be to assess the character and intelligence of the expert and then take whatever they say as gospel?

Why do you keep asking me questions like that? I said no before and the answer remains no.

Or by consideration do you mean that I should evaluate the statement and relate it to reality, and then doubt myself because I don't agree with the expert?

What do you think I should do?

What do I think you should do? Well, first I think you ought to give the single most correct person in human history on the subject of philosophy (the most important subject there is) the respect she is due. In this particular instance, it means you should actually read the full article that she wrote before declaring her wrong. You should exhaust all avenues of consideration of what she might have meant before you declare her to be in contradiction with herself. She doesn't strike me as a person who went around contradicting herself - so you would do well to not assume that until you have a fairly conclusive proof that he has in fact done so.

Rather than declaring, "she's wrong!" I think you should say, "I don't understand her point or how it can be reconciled with Objectivism. I can't see a way to reconcile it, given the meaning I think it has. Of course, I haven't read the full article, either. So my final judgment will have to wait until I can more surely say I am certain that I understand what she meant by those statements. Given her stature, she deserves a more full and thorough consideration before I dismiss her idea."

But, as I said above - and this is important - I was speaking less toward this particular incident and more toward your approach, in general. (which means, also, your approach to Objectivism in general) You're too quick to dismiss it or not give a care what it says, to make a final judgment of falsehood on any given point of Objectivism before you've exhausted every possible avenue of understanding. Ayn Rand and Objectivism provably deserve that kind of care and consideration before you complete your evaluation of their truth or falsehood on a given point. And it is not a threat to your independence or judgment to give it to them, because you are acknowledging a fact of reality: that truth is not just found randomly between geniuses and bums and, most importantly - that you are dealing with the inventor of a philosophy that advocated a full and unbreached recognition of reality, to a degree that is totally unmatched in human history.

[blackdiamond]

Jesus, Meta! Do you know what a straw man argument is? No matter how many times it is pointed out to you, you are arguing against what no one is saying, and even defending yourself against what NO ONE is accusing you of.

I have tried time and time again to explain how I am not advocating the complete dismissal of consideration toward Ayn Rand.

NO ONE thinks you advocate the complete dismissal of consideration toward Ayn Rand, so why you have you "tried time and time again to explain" that??

I take what she says seriosuly because I know that she did not throw around ideas lightly, not because I think she is probably right on whatever she says.

No one thinks she is probably right on whatever she says, as my last post clearly stated.

That means that I cannot treat what she said as my own knowledge, without first assessing it myself.

NO ONE is asking you to treat what she said as your own knowledge.

What I do not do, is put my own first-hand experience of reality into doubt SIMPLY BECAUSE Ayn Rand disagreed with me.

NO ONE is asking you to do that and you know it.

MY first-hand experience and understanding of reality is the standard of whether or not I consider something true or false or arbitrary, not the first-hand knowledge of others. THAT is independant thought.

NO ONE is asking you to do otherwise.

So WHO are you arguing against exactly? Your own straw man.

To say that it is possibly true, or probably true, is a statement of knowledge.

It is a statement of knowledge of probability (or "possibility"). That's all. And that simply affects your attitude. To give equal focus or attention (or status) to the opinion of a bum as to the opinion of a genius on a matter of high complexity, is neither justice nor independence; it is either dishonesty or irrationality.

I have considered this argument very seriously and at great length, and revisit the debate over and over in my head. I do not blank it out, I have found it to be false.

Well, good. And NO ONE is asking you to sacrifice your position (your mind) for Miss Rand's. Remember I did say that if i have solid proof that she is wrong, I will believe that she is wrong, without a problem! But there's nothing wrong with thinking you have a problem if you are quite uncertain about your own proof, if so far you have a very different conclusion from the top expert in the field and have failed to convince MANY other rational and honest people in that field. It was at such a point that Seeker said there was a problem (for Seeker).

Had Seeker said this AFTER there was sufficient proof that Ayn Rand was wrong, then it would indeed be a sign of non-independence, but not before. And if such a point of solid proof has come in this debate, I haven't seen it. The debate would have not continued upto this point if that solid proof has been given. (Unless you are saying that you have given us indisputable proof but we have ignored it just because it is contrary to Miss Rand's position? That would be a bigger insult.)

An expert's opinion qua opinion WITHOUT my first-hand understanding of the material of that opinion is worthless to me because it doesn't represent true knowledge on my behalf.

Thank you. A doctor telling you that he thinks your kidney requires a transplant is as "worthless" an opinion as a bum's opinion on your kidney, until you get "first-hand understanding" of renadinamacalogy.

Think about it for a sec, how could I know they were an expert unless I knew something about the thing they were an expert on?

Are you serious?

And if I knew that much, why couldn't I understand the material myself, after they have related it to my level of understanding?

You're not serious.

[blackdiamond]

Oops! My connection had gone down and I didn't notice that Inspector had already replied to Meta.

[Inspector]

What do you think I should do?

Oh, and most importantly: I think you should stop harassing forum members who post up with Ayn Rand's positions or arguments and accuse them of being dogmatic unless you can clearly show that their position is "Ayn Rand said it therefore it is true. Not because it is a valid argument, but because Ayn Rand said so." Because Ayn Rand's positions and arguments are both relevant and of interest, in the manner which I have illustrated in the last few posts.

[IAmMetaphysical]

All I have said is that because you know she did not throw ideas around lightly that her ideas be given serious consideration and a more extensive examination before dismissing them than you would give the random ravings of a bum on the street. That her endorsement of an idea was a fact of reality that you should be interested in.

I have considered the arguments given in this thread and have decided (based on the level of certainty of my previous views of rights) that it is false, it seems to me that Ayn Rand agreed with you guys. I have not read the article and have stated as much, and in my first post about this I used "seems" and "might" to make the fact that I was unsure of Ayn Rand's disagreement with me, BlackDaimond thought that cowardly, you apparently missed it. I didn't continue to include "might" and "seem" as I assumed it was assumed that that was what I meant.

Now, your above formulation is absolutely correct: it is "because I know she didn't throw around ideas lightly" that I give her more consideration than a bum on the street, NOT because I think she might possibly be more right than he.

That her endorsement of an idea was a fact of reality that you should be interested in.

I know it might seem ironic to you for me to quote another person's formulations, but Tara Smith's chapter on Independence is a very good one.

The independant person, by contrast, recognizes that his judgement is what counts, for him, because that is his indespenisble means of achieving values. Other people may be smarter than he, but he cannot know whether their ideas are of any value to him until he assesses them for himself.....

...It is rational for an egoist to take advantage of the knowledge of experts, the advice of the more experienced, the goods and services that others have created. Independance does not require that a person discover every element of knowledge or reinvent the wheel for himself. Indepedence, like all virtues, is not an end in itself but a means of flourishing. In order for a person to truly gain the value available from others, however, he must assess their ideas independantly-by the benchmark of metaphysical reality.

That is what I have been saying. I hope she has said it more clearly than I, but I think what I said was clear enough. BD has dismissed my stance as attacking a strawman, because he fails to see the implications of some of what you have said. I know that you are not saying that "Ayn Rand says it, makes it certainly right" you are saying that the fact that Ayn Rand said something means it deserves consideration. I agree there, but you have said that [paraphrasing]" an expert's opinion is evidence in favor of its truth." That is what I disagree with. I have considered the opposing arguments of this thread, at great length, and found them false. I have considered the quotes of Ayn Rand presented in this thread, and found them false, based on my knowledge of sex, of rights, and of force. My knowledge can be wrong, but I have no reason to believe that it is wrong. Ayn Rand disagreeing with me is not evidence that I may be wrong. I have not encountered a contradiction, so there is no need to check my premises any more than I do on a regular basis. To check my premises BECAUSE they (might)contradict Ayn Rand would be a great disrespect for my own mind, and I do not lack enough self-esteem to do so.

I think you assume a lot about my appraoch to knowledge so I will let you in on it:

What do I think you should do? Well, first I think you ought to give the single most correct person in human history on the subject of philosophy (the most important subject there is) the respect she is due.

I do give her respect, but respect does not mean ignoring the METAPHYSICAL fact that humans are fallible. And that goes both ways, I do not ignore the fact that I may be wrong either. The only respect I owe to her is to refrain from engaging in fallacy toward her, which I never have, and never will. Respect does not mean that I cannot disagree with her, nor does it mean that I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. I have given her much time in my thoughts about this (more fundamental issue), i.e. I have read the "About a woman president" essay more than three times, searching for an understanding, and have only found and strengthened my understanding of her mistake, in the issue of gender, and subsequently sex. I do not psychologize her and try to find the reason why she made that mistake, because it doesn't matter, her reason for doing it has no bearing on the truth of her view.

In this particular instance, it means you should actually read the full article that she wrote before declaring her wrong.

I declare YOU certainly wrong, and all the other supporters of the opposing viewpoint in this thread. I prefaced my assessment with her as "might" and "seems" to reflect the fact that I am not sure what her position actually is. In regards to the "About a woman President" essay, and her view of gender, I declare she is certainly wrong. I have no choice in that regard, the evidence for me is incontravertable.

She doesn't strike me as a person who went around contradicting herself - so you would do well to not assume that until you have a fairly conclusive proof that he has in fact done so.

She doesn't strike me as one either, but honest people can hold contradictions without knowing it, thats what ''making a mistake'' means. SUrely you're not saying that Ayn Rand never made a mistake?(sorry for the intimidation aspect of that question)

Rather than declaring, "she's wrong!" I think you should say, "I don't understand her point or how it can be reconciled with Objectivism. I can't see a way to reconcile it, given the meaning I think it has.

I haven't read that article but I do understand the quotes provided here by others and I can say that those quotes can't be reconciled with REALITY, as I don't care whether or not it reconciles with Objectivism. Its important to note here that the two are mutually exclusive, metaphysically. Objectivism may be a very accurate (or in my view of what it is, a completely accurate) description of reality, but it is not reality. Also, to say "I can't reconcile this with reality" is to say "she's wrong!" As irreconsilabilty(sp?) with reality is the standard of falsity.

You're too quick to dismiss it or not give a care what it says, to make a final judgment of falsehood on any given point of Objectivism before you've exhausted every possible avenue of understanding. Ayn Rand and Objectivism provably deserve that kind of care and consideration before you complete your evaluation of their truth or falsehood on a given point.

Adequate consideration of an idea is not dependant on the amount of time spent on considering it, it is dependant on the nature of the consideration, the validly of the knowledge considered against, and the idea's relation to the perceptually self-evident. I have given those ideas that I have assigned the status of false more than adequate consideration, just because I disagree with someome smart doesn't mean I haven't considered it enough, if I am wrong, it may be because I made a mistake, not because I refuse to think.

And it is not a threat to your independence or judgment to give it to them, because you are acknowledging a fact of reality: that truth is not just found randomly between geniuses and bums and, most importantly - that you are dealing with the inventor of a philosophy that advocated a full and unbreached recognition of reality, to a degree that is totally unmatched in human history.

The truth is not found randomly, but neither is it found in the minds of others. A bum can be just as right as Ayn Rand(abstracting away from any particular statement). The only way FOR ME to find out whether or not something is true is to do my own thinking.

And, in as much as Objectivism is an accurate representation of reality, it is a discovery, not an invention.

It is a statement of knowledge of probability (or "possibility"). That's all. And that simply affects your attitude. To give equal focus or attention (or status) to the opinion of a bum as to the opinion of a genius on a matter of high complexity, is neither justice nor independence; it is either dishonesty or irrationality.

I refer you to OPAR for a discussion about "possibly" true or "probably true" and that it does not mean "not impossible." In regards to knowledge, there are no statistical probabilities. To say that something is possibly true is to say that there is some, but not a lot, of evidence supporting its congruence with reality.

I don't give equal focus, attention, or especially status to the opinion of bums and geniuses, in fact I give no status at all to a statement I have not assessed for myself. My focus and attention is not dependant on how true I think a proposition might be before I've assessed whether it is true or not, that would be impossible. My focus and attention is dependant on how much of an impact something will have on my life and how much sense it is making thus far. A genius stating something, does not endow it with sensibility. Try to abstract away here form particular instances and get to the principle. Ayn Rand saying "existence exists" is true and worthy of attention because it is true and has incredible affect on human lives, not because she said it, in fact she deserves attention because of her true statements, not her statements deserving attention because she said them.

Well, good. And NO ONE is asking you to sacrifice your position (your mind) for Miss Rand's. Remember I did say that if i have solid proof that she is wrong, I will believe that she is wrong, without a problem! But there's nothing wrong with thinking you have a problem if you are quite uncertain about your own proof, if so far you have a very different conclusion from the top expert in the field and have failed to convince MANY other rational and honest people in that field. It was at such a point that Seeker said there was a problem (for Seeker).

The problem then is in his uncertainty, not in his disagreement with a top expert. IF however, his uncertainty comes from the fact of disagreeing with the expert, then he is being second-handed.

(Unless you are saying that you have given us indisputable proof but we have ignored it just because it is contrary to Miss Rand's position? That would be a bigger insult.)

I believe I have, it is here.{edit} Although I don't think it was ignored because it (might) contradict Rand, I think it was ignored because of emotionalism and misunderstanding.

Thank you. A doctor telling you that he thinks your kidney requires a transplant is as "worthless" an opinion as a bum's opinion on your kidney, until you get "first-hand understanding" of renadinamacalogy.

No, not until I get an understanding of what a kidney is, how it serves my life, how it is malfunctioning, what the cure is, and how the cure works. Do you trust homeopathic experts with your health? Why or why not?

You're not serious.

I am completely serious, dismissing me does not serve your interests.

Edited May 14, 2007 by IAmMetaphysical

[Capitalism Forever]

The right to seclusion in regards to sex.

Does that sound correct to everyone?

Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it.

[Seeker]

As the person who inadvertently began this raging debate on epistemology, I respectfully ask that it be taken to a new and proper thread - it's cluttering things up and it is irrelevant to the actual topic here. Thank you!

[Seeker]

Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it.

Excellent! Then we're making headway. I think that "the right to seclusion in regards to sex" correctly states not only the pro-right position, but also the essential view of Ayn Rand:

Many people regard a public representation of sexual intercourse to be disgusting - not because sex is evil, but precisely because it is a value, an exception-making value that requires privacy.

That's the important part: sex requires privacy. Sex is part of man's life, so we have now tied his requirement for privacy (or seclusion) in regards to sex to his needs qua man. That is the connection to leading a rational life, the connection to individual rights, the essence of the Objectivist argument favoring laws against open displays of sex including sexually arousing materials, i.e. pornography.

What remains is to confirm the validity of the right itself as well as the inclusion of pornography and sex acts. Here there are two parts:

1. It is right for man to experience sex only in seclusion

2. Seeing pornography or sex acts is a sexual experience

#1 is correct in my view.

To agree to the validity of #2, however, one must agree that man is not free to choose to not be aroused in response to seeing pornographic materials and sexual acts, and that such arousal fits within the category of experiences requiring seclusion, regardless of intensity, e.g. minor or momentary arousal. One must accede to the following argument by Capitalism Forever:

Being "turned on" is an automatic reaction to what you see. Just as I said above: a reflex to a set of sensations that is built into all sane men who have not actively desensitized themselves, or been desensitized by others.

I contend that if #1 and #2 are valid, then the right is valid and we have established a sound basis for public decency laws.

Thoughts?

Edited May 14, 2007 by Seeker

[blackdiamond]

Seeker. I know you started this thing, but now it's grown much bigger than you, so leave us alone! (Just kidding ). No, we'll have to leave it here. But let me just say to Meta that when I said "you're not serious" above, i meant with respect to the statement you made concerning your treatment of expert opinions. And I still find it hard to believe you are serious. If an experienced doctor tells me that his opinion is that I need to have my xtomitin taken out if my persistent pain is to stop, the most i can do is ask for ANOTHER expert opinion, NOT to study about the xtomitin and how it works and so on. I'm in a country where a lot of (uneducated) people would die if they took that approach and I do not believe they are irrational just because they are uneducated or because they follow the expert opinions of experienced surgeons without studying the subject matter for themselves or even understanding the reasoning behind his opinion. Simply based on the track record of these medical experts, most people here have abandoned witch doctors and prefer to follow the opinions of the doctors. Try telling them that this shows a lack of independence and they'll just point to the results. But anyway, Seeker is right: this is content for another thread.

I believe I have [given the indisputable proof that Ayn Rand is wrong], it is here.{edit} Although I don't think it was ignored because it (might) contradict Rand, I think it was ignored because of emotionalism and misunderstanding.

Your argument was disputed by both CapForever and myself because it did not capture certain examples of rights violations that we all agree are violations of rights (my hair example, for example, in which the senses are not particularly "overwhelmed" by a simple touch). Why do you believe our counter-argument came from emotionalism?

[mrocktor]

Excellent! Then we're making headway.

Not so fast. For one thing you are creating an ambiguity: are you talking about a right to seclude your sexual activity or a demand that other seclude theirs? You mean the second, but the way you state it means the first. The right to seclude one's own sexual activity is no more than the right to act and the right to property. Build a closed room, no one can lawfully snoop in it. The second is the unsuported claim I and others are demanding be proven, stating this as an assumption is begging the question.

That's the important part: sex requires privacy.

EDITED:

No, it does not. Until you prove it (I edited because I happen to agree that it does, and the challenge to you to prove your assertions would not be understood by some).

But the crucial point is, how do you get from "proper sex should be private" (if you manage to prove that) to "I have a right to not see others having sex". Yes, if the first is proven, those guys are obviously not having proper sex, but (and this is the kicker) law does not exist to force people to be moral.

1. It is right for man to experience sex only in seclusion

2. Seeing pornography or sex acts is a sexual experience

"1" is arbitrary.

"2" contains a floating abstraction and is meaningless.

one must agree that man is not free to choose to not be aroused in response to seeing pornographic materials and sexual acts

Incorrect. By this line of reasoning you could demonstrate the "right not to perspire" and demand that people install air conditioning in all public spaces so you are not "forced" to sweat.

To the extent that the arousal is a merely physiological response, it is non volitional and, therefore, not subject to "force". To the extent that it is a function of your own psychological evaluation, it is your own responsibility. By your line of reasoning you could sue a woman for being attractive, even if she is dressed (how DARE she arouse you against your will?).

You are commiting the same errors as the others beore you.

Edited May 14, 2007 by mrocktor

[Inspector]

IAmMetaphysical, I'm going to cut to this part because most of what you said is just asserting independence and reality, which I do not disagree with, and do not think are in opposition to what I have said.

BD has dismissed my stance as attacking a strawman, because he fails to see the implications of some of what you have said. I know that you are not saying that "Ayn Rand says it, makes it certainly right" you are saying that the fact that Ayn Rand said something means it deserves consideration. I agree there, but you have said that [paraphrasing]" an expert's opinion is evidence in favor of its truth." That is what I disagree with.

I wouldn't say that it is evidence of truth; I'd say it is evidence that you will find truth. As in, if you smell bacon, this is evidence that there may be bacon nearby. Of course, I have sometimes smelled bacon and found it to be something else altogether. But if I were as interested in bacon as I was in truth, then I would take a very, very keen notice when I smelled bacon. If I did not find bacon, I would damn well keep looking until I found what it was that led me to smell it and was sure that there wasn't actually some bacon hidden.

I understand that you already disagree with Ayn Rand on her premises of sex which lead to the conclusion written in this article. Given that, you're not going to look as deeply into it or give it as much benefit of the doubt as I do (given that I agree with her premises). I suppose that will have to do.

But let's cut back to where this all started:

To state that it is a "problem" to be in disagreement with Ayn Rand is to say that my first-hand knowledge of reality and Ayn Rand's statements of her first-hand knowledge of reality represent a contradiction IN MY KNOWLEDGE.

I ask again: How is that necessarily the case? This is what started this whole sequence; an accusation of dogmatism on your part that is, as far as I can tell, unwarranted. If nothing else, I would like you to stop throwing those accusations around so lightly. Given that this is a place for Objectivists, you should not criticize someone for taking the views of Ayn Rand seriously and saying that if there is a disagreement with them that this constitutes a "problem." There are obviously quite a few "problems" that don't have anything to do with dogmatism.

I think what it comes down to is that you once again forget the purpose of this board. Yes, you are not an Objectivist. I get that. But this board is for Objectivists - people who agree completely with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. So stop harassing us for being and doing exactly what the stated purpose of this board is. Unless you have a very clear indication that dogmatism is taking place, I would appreciate you not harassing me or any of the members here, as you have repeatedly done. And while you are allowed to disagree with Objectivism, I would remind you that the debate forum is the place for that. Asking questions or asking for explanations of a position are fine. Asking "why" is fine (although not in the "why why why WHY?!?!?" rudeness you engaged in). But, if you could step back from the line you skirt of sort-of-breaking-the-board-rules then I for one would appreciate it.

[mrocktor]

I think what it comes down to is that you once again forget the purpose of this board. Yes, you are not an Objectivist. I get that. But this board is for Objectivists - people who agree completely with the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Yes, us. Not the guys who agree completely with every word she ever wrote or said, contradictions and all, her genius achievement in philosophy be damned.

If you had offered a rational chain leading to your stated views - those views you claim to be hers (which I find likely), or had she done so, you would be fully vindicated in you latest tirade. As it stands, however, you just reinforce what you are denying.

There is no bacon. I looked.

Edited May 15, 2007 by mrocktor

[Inspector]

There is no bacon. I looked.

Contentless disagreement has no place here. We don't care that you disagree. If you have a specific question about a specific line of reasoning, then present it in a respectful manner. But this forum is not a place to state your disagreement with Objectivism or engage in tirades against it.

[Inspector]

Yes, us. Not the guys who agree completely with every word she ever wrote or said, contradictions and all, her genius achievement in philosophy be damned.

Objectivists are people who agree completely with Objectivism. If you think Objectivism contains contradictions, then you are not an Objectivist. You are not some kind of "real" Objectivist, unlike us phonies who think it is not flawed. You can claim that you are right and Objectivism is wrong (although you should mind the rules in that regard) - but you cannot claim that Ayn Rand and Objectivism are wrong and that you are the "real" Objectivist.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Inspector

[mrocktor]

Is Objectivism all Ayn Rand ever said or wrote or is it a fully integrated, rational philosophy with no unconnected pieces, as created by Ayn Rand? I know you consider it to be the first. I consider it to be the second. Anything Ayn Rand said, or wrote, that she didn't integrate to her philosophy is not Objectivism, its just something Ayn Rand said. She would, I'm certain, be apalled by your acceptance of something she said with no understanding of it, incapable as you are of connecting it to her epistemology, her ethics, her politics.

I couldn't care less if you think you are the "real" defender of Ayn Rand's ideas in this debate, its just one more thing you are wrong about. You follow "the word", no matter the mental gymnastics you have to go through to get to the conclusion you already "know". That is not Objectivism. It is almost like religious behavior, only worse - because you cloak yourself in the mantle of reason. Take "Ayn Rand agrees with me" away from your argument and it crumples like a wet paper bag - which is probably why you feel it is so important to paint me, IAmMetaphysical and anyone else who disagrees with you as a non-Objectivist, irrational by association.

To paraphrase someone else, "you have therefore found it necessary to deny reason, in order to make room for sexual prudishess".

[Seeker]

On this question I agree with Inspector. As I understand it, Objectivism is, quite simply and by definition, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. That it is (or indeed, whether it is) fully integrated and rational is not part of that definition. To know what that philosophy is we look to the statements by Ayn Rand that had philosophical import because they illustrate her philosophy. The passage in question undeniably has philosophical import - as such it illustrates Objectivism. It may or may not fully explain it, but the essential thing is not whether the statements are integrated or rational but that they are philosophical in nature. You are free to decide that the principles illustrated are not fully intregrated and rational, but not to say that this makes them non-Objectivism. So, it's Objectivism, and we have to treat it accordingly. Others apparently do see connections that integrate it to the rest of her philosophy and think that it is rational, and I am trying to explore those connections with their help and give the benefit of the doubt as long as there are further grounds for clarification and validation. The disagreements on the question of public decency (not epistemology and forum rules) are most helpful in raising issues and steering the discussion, so I appreciate the substantive contributions by both sides, though not the rancor. Ultimately I may or may not agree with this part of Objectivism, but I think that the purpose of this thread is a free-ranging inquiry on the subject in question for all those who are open to it.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Seeker

[Inspector]

Is Objectivism all Ayn Rand ever said or wrote or is it a fully integrated, rational philosophy with no unconnected pieces, as created by Ayn Rand? I know you consider it to be the first. I consider it to be the second.

I do not consider it to be the first. You, however, claim that you can separate any part of the philosophy that you do not feel integrates and say "that's not Objectivism because it does not integrate." Objectivism is everything Ayn Rand wrote about philosophy, not just the parts you agree with or feel are integrated with the core. You commit the opposite side of the fallacy you (incorrectly) accuse me of: of equating Objectivism with truth, as such.

The "true Objectivist" (which is a useful label, given the nature of this board and its rules, not as a a divining rod of truth, as such) is the person who agrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, which includes all of her statements on the subject of philosophy. It is not "everything she ever wrote;" it is not what her favorite color was or her brand of cigarettes. It includes all of her positions on philosophy, which most certainly means a discussion of rights, such as this one.

You follow "the word", no matter the mental gymnastics you have to go through to get to the conclusion you already "know".

I do no such thing.

[edited, to add a lot]

Edited May 15, 2007 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

Your argument was disputed by both CapForever and myself because it did not capture certain examples of rights violations that we all agree are violations of rights (my hair example, for example, in which the senses are not particularly "overwhelmed" by a simple touch). Why do you believe our counter-argument came from emotionalism?

Thats the whole thing about it you see. Right are derived from principles about human nature, about human volition and the requirements of human life, not from abstracting away from instances we can "just know" are already rights violations. We find out what are violations by applying the principles, not the other way around; morality is not derived from induction from the experiences of moral people, you define moral people by their loyalty to already validated principles. Does this mean that moral principles are a rationalistic pie in the sky? No, the principles are derived from the inducted knowledge about the role of volition in the advancement of human life and its necessity for human flourishing. Moral principles must necessarily be separated from first hand induction from experience because of the nature of moral prescription, i.e. you can not discover what men should do by observing what they do do, to do so would be to obliterate the prescriptive purpose of moral principles, it would be like saying "you are right in doing what you are doing, because you are right, and you are doing it.". To derive an ''ought" from an ''is'' the ''is" must describe the nature of the end to which the moral prescription serves as the means, e.g. you ought to walk if you want to get across te street, you ought to stop breathing if you want to pass out, you ought to be independant if you want to live, you ought to have integrity if you want to live. The opposite approach says you ought to breathe if you want to be moral.

Now that thats out of the way, if you are saying that the principles I layed out are inadequate because they don't get you to this instance where you think there is a rights violation, then I would ask you where you came up with that rights violation in the first place; that's where the charge of emotionalism comes in. I think(and may be wrong) that you "just feel" that touching someone's hair without their expressed permission is a violation of rights and thats why you maintain that it is. If I am wrong, then correct me and give your validation.

I do think that my principles(which are just a reformulation of Objectivist principles to the specific context of "public displays") do cover the instance that you mention(If I remember it correctly), but there are more steps involved. It is important to keep in mind that when I defined the principle's applications I do so to the limited context in discussion and that they do apply in other contexts, but in other formulations taken from the inducted facts that my formulations were taken from but at a different angle.

This is what I wrote as the basis, which is standard Objectivist politics.

The basis of rights is the fact that in order to survive man must use his mind. "Use his mind" here meaning anyway he might be able to do so, and does not preclude irrationality. The nature of the human mind is that it will not work under compulsion, it shuts down, and the mind dies. So in order for men to be able to use their minds, they must be free from compulsion, i.e. physical restriction of the use of their minds or their minds's products. Perceptions, although non-volitional and thus not under that which one can consent to, are not infringements of a man's right to use his mind as "using his mind" presupposes a perceptual content. Man's use of his mind is not pre-perceptual (since the perceptual is given and automatic), but conceptual, which is the taking of the perceptually given and integrating it into concepts and then acting on the understanding of those concepts.

The part in bold is an important one. All of your criticicisms of my post have been centered around this idea that I am advocating this right to the mind, but not the body or to property. Man is a being of body and mind and without his body his mind would be useless, and the right to his mind is only derived because of its usefullness to the success of his bodily existence anyway. The right to the mind is a derivitive of the right to life, which for man means his bodily life, his physical existence. Man has a right to his life, because life is the standard of value, he thus has the right to sustain it, and he does so by means of his mind, and his work of his mind, and use of the products of that mind, one of which is his body. His body is sovreign, it is his first possession, and his most valuable. He cannot excercise his right to life without it; it is indispensible, just as indispensible as his mind is. A man owns his body, since it is the ultimate product of his labor, the final product which all other products serve as means, it is the culmination of all his work into the sum which is his physical existence, his life, which is the standard of value. The right to the ownership of his body means he has the right to set the terms of its use, and this is where your example comes in: nobody has the right to use another's body in a way that negates their excercise of life, in a way that counteracts their mind, against their will, without their consent. While carressing someone's hair does not restrict them from using their mind(in the present tense), it a violation of their right to the body's sovreignty, and their right to decide how it is to be used, in the same way as I have a right for you not to touch my car, and any use you may have of my car is by my permission.(I suspect that this might open up a whole new can of worms in regards to equivocation with the ""right not have one's perceptual faculty used" or "the right to not be involved in a sexual situation without one's consent," but Mrock is doing a good job with that, so I don't think it will be a problem, I actually expect to be dismissed offhand, but if it does come to it, I am ready to expand upon the above)

You described my position as being a "conceptualisation theory of rights" but i have just shown that it can not, for man, be limited to just his mind, that is where the misunderstanding comes in to play. Man is a being of mind and body, and it is his body and his physical existence that endows him with the rght to his mind in the first place (because it is his tool of physical survival.)

QUOTE('IAmMetaphysical')

To state that it is a "problem" to be in disagreement with Ayn Rand is to say that my first-hand knowledge of reality and Ayn Rand's statements of her first-hand knowledge of reality represent a contradiction IN MY KNOWLEDGE.

I ask again: How is that necessarily the case? This is what started this whole sequence; an accusation of dogmatism on your part that is, as far as I can tell, unwarranted. If nothing else, I would like you to stop throwing those accusations around so lightly. Given that this is a place for Objectivists, you should not criticize someone for taking the views of Ayn Rand seriously and saying that if there is a disagreement with them that this constitutes a "problem." There are obviously quite a few "problems" that don't have anything to do with dogmatism.

How in the hell is what I said in that quote a accusation of dogmatism?

[Inspector]

How in the hell is what I said in that quote a accusation of dogmatism?

Are you saying that you haven't accused anyone of dogmatism in this thread?

[blackdiamond]

Thats the whole thing about it you see. Right are derived from principles about human nature, about human volition and the requirements of human life, not from abstracting away from instances we can "just know" are already rights violations.

By inserting those quotes (on "just know"), an unsuspecting reader would think you are quoting me. My exact words were "that we all agree" are rights violations.

What follows is therefore a straw man correcting what I did not say. And when you are satisfied that you have finished constructing a devastating argument against that straw man, you end with this:

Now that thats out of the way, if you are saying that the principles I layed out are inadequate because they don't get you to this instance where you think there is a rights violation, then I would ask you where you came up with that rights violation in the first place; that's where the charge of emotionalism comes in. I think(and may be wrong) that you "just feel" that touching someone's hair without their expressed permission is a violation of rights and thats why you maintain that it is. If I am wrong, then correct me and give your validation.

Now, let me admit this: I'm about to psychologise you. I think that the same attitude you express to Ayn Rand and other sufficiently rational people is what leads you to this kind of problem. You've known CapForever and Inspector for a long time, and perhaps myself too, and you know that we can not base our theory of rights on emotions. But because you don't believe in knowing people, and thus giving them the benefit of the doubt when what they appear to be saying seems totally absurd to you, you will easilyi conclude that they are indeed saying such an absurd thing, instead of first thinking you might have misunderstood them, given the context of what they generally believe. This explains your countless straw men.

Back to the question (to concretise). CapForever, Inspector and myself have said many times that we base our understanding of "rights" on Objectivist politics, which is simply about property ownership (and the pursuit of happiness, etc). (Inspector even wrote the word "MINE" in very big font to try to get this point across).So, when I gave that example of *obvious* rights violations that I expected everyone to *agree* as a rights violation (the hair example), I was assuming everyone here agrees with basic Objectivist politics. The case of using that woman's hair is a violation of her rights simply because the hair is the property of the woman, period. How is that emotionalism?

I do think that my principles(which are just a reformulation of Objectivist principles to the specific context of "public displays")...

This is either intellectual dishonesty or poor memory. In your posts you were not claiming to reformulate Objectivist principles just "to the specific context of public displays". If that was all you were claiming, then both CF's argument and my argument against you were indeed moot. Go back to that discussion; you were claiming your principles were a reformulation of Objectivist politics in a much much wider context than what you now humbly claim, which is the only reason both CF and I gave examples that had nothing to do with "public displays" to counter your wrong reformulation. And if it was because we misunderstood you, you would have simply dismissed our examples by saying "your examples have nothing to do with public displays, to which my reformulation is specifically applicable."

Edited May 15, 2007 by blackdiamond