Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Legal foundation for public decency, lewdness, nudity

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 437
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

See this thread: Bill Clinton's Impeachment--The legal aspects of abnormal behavior. It's quite a long one and full of pointless bickering, but there is about 10% or so of the posts where you will fin

I disagree with this in part; positive emotions (or any emotions, for that matter) are not the standard of value, but they are values.

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.

Who defines what Objectivism is? I say Ayn Rand does. What does a rational person, such as her, mean when she says "my philosophy"? Does she mean any statement of a philosophic bent she ever uttered or does she mean a principled, consistent whole, solidly anchored in reality and integrated? Which would she choose as her legacy? If a single error were found in one of her "philosophic statements" she never developed a complete argument for, which does not change the truth of her core principles, or the genius of her identifications, or that of a myriad applications she presented solid arguments for - would she consider that "Objectivism is false"?

I'm not picking and choosing parts of Objectivism. I am taking the whole, and everything that is tied to it by rational arguments of Ayn Rand's or authorized by her. If some of her "philosophic statements" are not integrated, they are not part of her philosophy.

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."

Know. That I know does not integrate. And its not part of the philosophy until it is integrated. So, your statement should read:

"You claim that you can separate any philosophical statement that you know does not integrate and say "that's not Objectivism because it does not integrate."

And I do so claim, the nature of Objectivism requires that it be integrated.

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.

The board owner differs, which is useful given the nature of this board and rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, mrocktor, that statement of David's is functionally identical to what Inspector has said.

Now then, as DavidOdden said AND WAS IGNORED, this topic is about public decency NOT about what defines adherence to Objectivism or the many other things that have been brought up over the past few pages. While some of these topics may merit threads in their own right, please stop hijacking this one as it has been the subject of complaints. If anyone else posts more in this vein the members that have failed to follow instructions will be put on moderator preview. If you want to sling accusations at each other at least have the decency to take it elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BD, you're obseesedd with accusing me of attacking strawmen. Please realize that when I make points, I am setting up context, I am referring the reader to a certain set of of knowledge in order to make what I say following that more illuminating. I did not out right claim that I was reformulating objectivist theory of rights, but neither did I claim that I was giving a more general principle. If you follow my argument you will see that the groundwork I lay is the more general theory of rights, and the passages following are their application to the specific sense of "public display." Your failure to see this, does not change the fact that I said it that way.

Objectivist politics, i.e. theory of rights does not rest on the concept of property. Property is a derivation, not the foundation. I suggets you re-read the appropriate material to get a better sense of how the right of property is derived. I gave you an explanation above but apparently you have a hard time undertsanding me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not out right claim that I was reformulating objectivist theory of rights,

I know all about Objectivist politics, but I am asking about YOUR proposed alternative to it. Objectivist politics is based on life, liberty, and property, while you are talking of rights to "perceive, conceive, and act." I suppose your unstated implication is that what you are proposing is merely another way of stating the Objectivist position--but I don't think it is; I think your proposal is vague at best (see the sentences ending with a ? in my previous post) and to the extent it isn't vague, it is in many ways incompatible with Objectivist politics (see the sentences ending with a period).

I am reformulating Objectivist politics, and the principle of rights.

I did not out right claim that I was reformulating objectivist theory of rights,

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=142851

Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean that I did not claim it when I wrote the first post in question.

In your posts [plural] you were not claiming to reformulate Objectivist principles just "to the specific context of public displays" ...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.

I did not out right claim that I was reformulating objectivist theory of rights,

I mean that I did not claim it when I wrote the first post in question.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like it is the nature of sex threads to drag on endlessly and degenerate into discussions about the meaning of Objectivism and the intellectual honesty of the participants. I think all that we have had to say about the original subject has been said for now, so I am closing the thread, at least for a while. Any mod should feel free to re-open it on the request of anyone who wishes to add a post relating to the legal foundation for public decency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

Yes, it is, and your position that a given point of Ayn Rand's philosophy should be treated as totally arbitrary until you prove it to yourself, to be given no more consideration than the random ravings of any bum on the street, is untrue and highly disrespectful. This explains your disrespectful attitude toward Ayn Rand and Objectivism (which goes beyond your claim that you just don't understand it and want it proven) And it also explains your unreasonable assertions of dogmatism on this board; your standard of what is dogmatic is highly flawed.

Nobody has claimed that because Ayn Rand made a philosophical claim, that makes it true. But it does remove it from the realm of the arbitrary-and-to-be-casually-dismissed. Nothing is proven until you have connected it solidly to reality, but Ayn Rand deserves more than dismissal - you had better be solidly sure she is wrong before you do so, if you have the proper level of respect for her obvious and demonstrated level of genius.

The same is true, on a continuum, of anyone making a claim. If a respected, intelligent, and most importantly very well integrated man makes a claim, his character is a form of evidence for that claim and the amount of consideration it deserves. The same goes for a crazed bum and the amount of consideration a claim of his deserves, if you see no other obvious reason to do so. If someone has given you reason to believe that they are in the habit of making arbitrary claims, then sure - dismiss their claims. They deserve it. Ayn Rand does not.

Nothing is true to rational beings until objectively proven. Ayn Rand's reputation only gives us significant reason to pursue proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you always just do this deliberately or you construct your straw men honestly, but neither Inspector nor I said her smartness is the only thing that gives her "claims" that status of "evidence". Neither of us would say that we would treat Einstein's comments on philosophy (of law) in the same way, nor indeed that we would take Miss Rand's opinion of history's greatest chess tactician as seriously as we would take Gary Kasprov's opinion (of course we would be shocked if she even gave such an opinion authoritatively because it would be totally out of character for her). What I find difficult to believe is that you honestly think Gary Kasparov's opinion on a certain chess opening carries as much weight (i.e. no weight) as any other chess player's opinion before you understand the precise reasoning behind their "claims", which implies you would not at any point think that Kasparov is (at least) "probably right" just because he is a chess genius who has made very few mistakes in his game and has made some important and amazing contributions to the theory of chess openings.

If you don't understand this already, you never will.

Interesting. Ayn Rand hated chess for the expressed reason that she did not respect any game where one's decision should be judged by the reactionary decision of another.

I play chess and I vehemently disagree with her for reasons outside of this thread. But it does illustrate that two people can differ on personal preferences while still sharing a fundamental philosophy's principles.

Edited by dreadrocksean
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Ayn Rand hated chess for the expressed reason that she did not respect any game where one's decision should be judged by the reactionary decision of another.

Interesting. Ayn Rand hated chess? While she was neither an enthusiest nor a player, her analysis of the game as it related to man's life to Boris Spassky did not appear to come across as very supportive of your proposition here.

Her comments on chess in her journals was more tersely stated as "What's the use?" in regards to the attempt to "calculate a chess game".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

*** Mod's note: Merged this post with an existing thread on this issue. - sN ***

Should it be legal in for individuals to behave in a lewd manner while in public? What about while on their property but while in view of the public?

Two examples:

1. A man walks outside of his house on his lawn in broad daylight naked.

2. A man walks down a city street naked.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
Link to post
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...