About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luther says: Various sites I have read about the more reputable brothels such as Chicken Ranch indicate conditions more beneficial than those you describe.

I made no reference whatsoever to conditions of any type. Besides, that would be inconsequential. Personally I find the straight up street hooker to be more worthy of compassion and pity, she is on average, far more of a victim than the clean sheets variety of hooker.

Luke says: I also understand this can be a sore discussion for many and since my experience in that industry amounts to nil, I have little else to say.

Luke, I have never been a pimp or prostitute either. Nor have I ever been an enforcer for the mafia, or someone that fights roosters for fun. But, I can safely say that my having not engaged in any of these immoral practices does not in any way disqualify me from making comment on them.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/20, 4:23pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr Ring,

I never accused you of lying, I merely stated that I do not believe you are good-looking enough to be a high class prostitute that can play pretense games with words like courtesan. I think you can only sell that on the web, when it comes to selling ass I would say you would be K- Mart and not even Macy's.

Mr Ring then says: As for you, well, frankly, your philosophy deserves you. 

If by that you mean I am an Objectivist fundamentally consistent within its principles, I can only say; thank you.

Also, I never called you a 'whore", nowhere do I say that you are giving it away for free to a lot of people. What I am saying is that you are a prostitute, and in all probability, a third rate one.

George




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George,

Thank you for your comments.  As we both know, forum members get into heated debates about the morality of a variety of activities and often arrive at stalemates.  Happily, we all agree that the political value of liberty allows each of us to engage in activities that others may find immoral.  Moral judgment, i.e. the virtue of Justice, helps us to paint accurate pictures of others according to each individual's own rationality.  Reason, as an attribute of the individual, often leads to individual conclusions that differ.  Lengthy discussions may or may not resolve these differences.

In the end, the person passing the judgment must decide what to do with the person he has judged as moral, immoral or mixed.  Does he ostracize him?  Compartmentalize him?  Embrace him in the expectation of eventually changing?  Whatever one does, it needs to deliver some sort of tangible net benefit to the person passing the judgment within his expected lifetime.

We had this discussion at SOLO Florida the other night.  One member expressed strong dislike of the Mormons who own and operate Franklin Covey.  I suggested that the free market allows us to reward their virtues while not sanctioning their vices.  This led to a clash regarding what the owners did with the profits.  Do they use those to promote their faith elsewhere?  If so, does our patronage of their products amount to the promotion of their evil?  If we boycott them, do we pay a price for the loss of tangible benefit they deliver?  In the end, I leave that to each person to decide.  Speaking for myself, I continue to use their fully secular products and enjoy their benefits and encourage others to do the same.  What the owners do with their profits remains in my circle of concern but not my circle of immediate influence.

I could expand this approach to a discussion of the sex industry, but not tonight.  Suffice it to say that I would not ostracize or condemn a person outright simply because I knew of that person's involvement in that industry.  Such condemnation would deliver no benefit to me and may rob me of other benefits I could enjoy from other values that person offers.  I deal with plenty of evaders of the religious variety in the same way -- praising their virtues and challenging their vices while enjoying whatever maximum values I can from the transaction.


Luke Setzer




Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke says: I could expand this approach to a discussion of the sex industry, but not tonight.  Suffice it to say that I would not ostracize or condemn a person outright simply because I knew of that person's involvement in that industry. 

Luke, I agree. I could care less about the pretentious claptrap that Mr Ring likes to comment on. What hit my nerve, was the fact that Mr Ring consistantly bashes Objectivism, and sings the praises of hedonism, extreme leftist politics, and new age theism. For the most part he has gotten a pass by everyone (including myself), because he bashes politely and with a nice play on words from time to time.

But I have grown tired of his Objectivism pounding, and his preaching hedonistic nonsense. I have also grown tired of his having to remind us  in everyone of his fucking post that he is a high class prostitute, with a tone of, "isn't that just the cutest thing". I don't buy that crap for a second.

Nor is his selling of ass a particular virtue in my code of values. He can sell it all he wants, but it's past time to shut the fuck up about it. Besides, the amount of time he spends on this board and his 'war and peace' length post, sure as hell indicates a lack of buyers.

Luke, had you or I made some of the same statements about Objectivism (and objectivist) that Mr Ring has, we would have been challenged right away and with great 'bluntness'. Oh well, I just thought it was time that the so-called 'courtesan' be called on his nonsense.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/20, 7:58pm)




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George,

I was quoted by you, not too long ago, when I pointed out that Jeanine Ring gets a pass on posts that reek off hedonism and Paganism.  I think that happens because people here are very tolerant of those with differing views, even as we may passionately express our disagreement from time to time.  I am glad you drew the line with Jeanine's false assertions against Objectivism, and with much honesty and integrity.

I don't hate Jeanine, or any prostitute, and I'm sure you don't either.  Hate is reserved for the truly depraved, such as rapists and murderers.  What I feel is sadness and pity.  I never lived in Ancient Greece or Rome, and nobody posting here ever has, but I know what I saw in the Third World and in the inner cities of America.  Happiness and respect is not what I felt when I saw women selling their bodies to sate the lusts of horny men.  If giving or withdrawing moral sanction for what we believe to be immoral is "prejudiced" or "bigoted", then so be it.




Post 25

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron says: George, I was quoted by you, not too long ago, when I pointed out that Jeanine Ring gets a pass on posts that reek of .....

That's right, you were.

I never did get around to apologizing to you for that. So let me take this moment to do so.

I'm sorry, I was wrong.

Sincerely,

George 

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/20, 8:10pm)




Post 26

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I simply note that if one has a philosophy, such as Objectivism or my own, which places the conclusions of science in a different place than would the empiricism dominant in today's scientific vulture, it is useless to appeal to the authority of some, most, or all evolutionary biologists, without first making an explicit argument for the philosophical premises accepted by these scientists.


Can you clarify what you mean by this statement? When I first saw it, I took it to mean that, in your view, philosophy should have a “veto power” over science—a view which I sometimes see espoused by Objectivists (and with which I wholeheartedly disagree). This seems to be how Next reacted to this statement as well, but now that I look at it again, I'm not so sure that that's what you intended to convey—it looks more like you might just be saying that scientists shouldn't be taken seriously if they don't begin their research with an acceptance of, say, reason, the mind, and the scientific method.

So, if you regard this as an important enough point to expand upon, can you explain this position a bit more, so that that I and other posters don't make fools of ourselves by rebutting a point that has nothing to do with what you actually meant to convey?

(Of course, based on the direction in which this thread has now been dragged, we're probably going to see at least 50 posts of nonsense before anyone starts thinking about what this thread is actually, like, about again...)



Post 27

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anyhow, back to Kant and the new destroyers of Objectivism.  Manfred writes:

As mentioned above, all this awakens in me both the sensation and the suspicion that Rand’s enemies have now reached the end of the line and are fighting with their backs against the wall to erase Objectivism from the face of the Earth.

I don't think this is the case.  It's true that most enemies of Objectivism wish that Ayn Rand's ideas were erased from the face of the earth, but I don't see them as having their backs against the wall in their efforts to do so.  If anything, Objectivists are the ones still at a disadvantage.  Ayn Rand's ideas are attacked from both Left and Right, and the prevalence of faith-based and collectivist thinking in society at large is still significant.

Think about it this way: if you begin with the total number of people in the Western world who have heard of Ayn Rand, and then narrow that number down further to the number of people who have actually have a basic understanding of her ideas, and then narrow that number down even further to the number of people who generally accept and believe in Objectivism, you arrive at a number that is a microscopic fraction of the population of the 'free' world. (My guess is that number is significantly less than one percent).  So I don't quite think it is the Rand haters that have their backs against the wall. 




Post 28

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This will be my last post.

)(*)(




Post 29

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan,

Based on your post, and your reading of Manfred's argument, how does one arrive at the conclusion that:

The capacities of our senses developed, thus, by evolution in accordance to what really exists.
It seems to me more like a way of claiming evolutionary biology as a supporter of Manfred's claims.  I do not see what this conclusion contributes to Manfred's argument but an assertion from authority that is clearly does not follow from his argument.  It is possible that he present the evolution evidence in the original article/paper that he quoted from, but let him provide it.

I'm not sure if Manfred is even interested in the realist interpretation of Kant presented by Walsh.  I think that there are problems with that interpretation, and that Kant was so unclear that he is open to multiple interpretations.  My personal opinion is that even if the evolution of the senses in the way that Manfred wants to argue is granted, Manfred has still not interpreted Kant properly.




Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I received the following SOLO-mail from Jeanine. I asked her permission to post it. She granted it.

As usual, it's long. I'll have a few comments at the end of it.

______________________________________________

Msr. Perigo, your majesty.

You asked be some time ago whether I thought there was hope for a love of colour and life, of "sense of life", among Objectivists.  I am sorry I did not reply then; I could not think of the right words to say, but what I wanted to write was something like this: "as a Pagan, I will never make an Objectivist, but I wish the best for your philosophy, and think you are rescusing the best of its essence from a sad past."

And that is what I believed then, and I thank you for your wonderful work to try to create a living spirit within the Objectiivist world.

But I must say, and I speak tragically as well as with bitterness, that I have concluded forever that this is not possible.  Msr. Perigo, thank you very much for running this site, and I know you have tried wonderfully.  But I am leaving your court, and I shall never return, and I have sworn a personal oath never to seek friendship or alliance again with Objectivists for as long as I may live.

In every Objectivist site, I have been scorned and hated, not for my flaws, but for my virtues.  I have fought beyond measure and given up everything in my previous life to defy society and live a life of my dreams, and I am despised for it, and despised by people who dare call themselves individualists.  And every time, this philosophy of the individual, the minority of one, has ended up refusing to treat me as the gender of my choice, and I speak, as almsot any transgender would, as someone who, if I could not live as a woman, would want to die.

There are other worlds, better worlds, which manage to speak to me with respect and kindness, that can see the colour in life I see, that understand the sirit that inspired me.  Objectivism cannot. Monsieur Perigo, that is a fact.  Objectivism had to be dragged to tolerating gays and lesbians; now it cannot tolerate transgenders, or counterculturalists, or prosititutes.  The simple, inescapable fact is that Objectivism, no matter how many of its ideas I admire, will always be a miserable place for me.  I give up this fight.  Others can treay me as a human being, yet eventually- this is now the fifth Objectivist forum where I have been treated like a dog- this subculture cannot.  I have finally learned.  I am swearing off Objectivism for the rest of my life, and I am done with philosophy and surrogate academia.  I have found a world that can accept me, respect me, understand my loves, and it is unfortunately one my intellect once barred from me.

This was the last place for me.  As I have told Mme. Branden, I have wanted badly, more than anything all my life, to speak with the minds in greatness that I admired, the names that I once reverenced as a Randian child.  Well, I have, I have now.  And I thank you for giving me the chance to experience this just once.

But what it has shown me is another thing; that anywhere I go in the bourgeois conventional world, and anywhere includes the subworld of Objectivism, I as a transgender woman and a prostitute cannot exist.  I have long thought of doing what every one of my sister prostitutes has advised me and drop out of an impossible mainstream life.  I still can't quite bring myself to do so; I will still keep my own group online.  But this message shall be my retirement from my hangings on to the last of a philosophical life.  I swear to you, on my honor, that the only happiness in this world has been in existence as a whore, as a sexual creature where I can be my own aesthetic creation.  Objectivism has done nothing but scorn that and every other happiness I have had.  And Objectivism truely is the best that philosophy has to offer in this world.

I am done with philosophy.  To quote the irrationalist- my ears no longer ring at that word- Spanish existentialist Miguel de Unamuno- "I take myself now to my lord Don Quixote de la Mancha".

So, goodbye.  May I please ask that the SOLO admiinstration delete my account.  I know no one here will ever care, but I have taken a risk to post here openly, and since I don't have any value left here, I would prefer those risks be minimized.

I do hope you can make something worthwhile with SOLO- I wish I thought something like this could succeed.  But my fellow guests have been stating and explicit general concurrence that the essence of humanity of repression (I quote), that children should give up love for their parents, as well as damned my profession in gross ignorance and insulted me as a transgender woman in ways so painful I will never be able to look at or focus on that screen.  Msr. Perigo, I am afriad this is the reality of Objectivism; this is what Objectivist culture has always been, from the NBI to the present, and it remains so here.  I beleive neither you, nor Sciabarra, nor Mme. Branden, can change what Objectivism is.  And what Objectivism is has tortured and despised everything I love.

I truly thank you; I am glad for all you have done, and for kindnesses you have shown me (though I do disagree with you about the war).  I don't think you want to hear that I think you are better than your philosophy, but that is the truth.

Tomorrow, I shall go on the Winter Solstice to meet in his home a man whom I love.  He is another prostitute, another despised by your fellows in philosophy, and he is a beautiful, tender soul of a kind I do not know here.  We're going to try Ecstasy together, and I will celebrate the stars of the evening as a Pagan, as I can only now, as I never could with my former life or my former mind.  It will be a night to give myself entirely to my new Life I have chosen; a night to recognize where my happiness, my light, my hopes and dreams and future lie.

I do not blame you, I truly do not, for how you must look at me and see unreason.  From all that you know, you are right; all I would wish you to know is that I speak with sincerity.  As for unreason, it does not look such from my eyes.  But having seen what the highest philsophy of reason has done, I confess my discernment dims and that for that ruling I no longer care.

goodbye,

and blessed be,

Jeanine Shiris Ring   )(*)(
Aster Manque

For a Philosophy I loved:

Thinking back, on how things worked,
and how we loved so well
I wanted to be the mother of your child
and now its just farewell
 
Put your hands in your hands
and come with me
To find another bed
Put my hands, put my hands
on anyone's shoulder
'cause I can't be with you

     {Cranberries; I fear they may be headbanging caterwaulers- however much
       we disagreed on this; let me say I love that phrase}

______________________________________

Now I know Ms Ring did not *have* to spit the dummy in this way. She *could* have chosen to ignore the posters who attacked her & continued to deal with those who didn't. (That would have been my preference - I do tire so of cry-babies.) However, it's obvious that her previous encounters with Objectivists predisposed her to think that her attackers - & SOLO - were just "par-for-the-course-so-why-should-I-bother?"

And part of me agrees with her. It requires a fair dollop of insensitivity to another person's context, when that person was a woman inside a man's body who has reworked nature to her heart's desire, to call that person "Mister." It requires a fair dollop of crude bigotry to condemn that person for engaging in commercial sex with other adults by mutual consent as an "ass-seller." It requires a fair dollop of presumptuousness to tell that person to "shut the fuck up" when one does not own the board on which that person speaks & is therefore out of line in telling *anyone* to "shut the fuck up." Confronted with such crassness, in Ms. Ring's place I too would be tempted to sling my hook (no sexual double-entendre intended).

As Joe has explained, non- & anti-Objectivists *are* allowed here, provided they show some respect for the fact that this *is* an Objectivist web site whose owners revere their philosophy. More, dissenters are positively *welcome* if they put up good arguments in good faith. That's a selfish thing on our part - there's nothing that keeps one on one's intellectual toes better than thoughtful arguments sincerely proffered. I never once had the sense that Ms. Ring's objections to Objectivism were proffered in bad faith, much less malevolence. I actually think that, over time, SOLOists could have won her over, if the ham-fisted hadn't charged in. I could be wrong, but now, we'll never know.

It's funny how different are the things that enrage us. For some, obviously, it's the spectacle of a transgender prostitute who not only is not ashamed of her work but idealises it. I'm not enraged by that at all, & in fact would not want to live in a world that *was* enraged by it (if I wanted to live in such a world I'd migrate to Iran, or some part of America inhabited by closet-gay Randroids). What enrages me, to the point where I physically shake when I behold it, is the spectacle of clever-dick smart-ass word-play wankers posturing as philosophers who *never* state their own actual position on anything but simply try to tear apart the stated positions of others. In one such case on this board, the wanker doesn't even have the guts to state his name. *This* type of person - not a trans-gender prostitute - is the dregs of humanity in my view. Yet, note, here we put up with even *that*.

To both Ms. Ring *and* her attackers alike I say: ponder *that* before you throw hissy fits.

If we seriously believe that we are engaged in a contest of ideas, we must not shrink from that self-same contest. For us Objectivists, that means constantly repairing to the facts of reality, rather than the hobgoblins of ignorant prejudice, & taking on all-comers.


Linz






(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 12/20, 11:16pm)




Post 31

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mandfred,
 
 

Thank you for your article. I did read it with interest but think your treatment of the ‘concept’ Universe is not all that accurate.
You say:


If Kant had defined "Universe" he would have been obliged to not err as he did. The term "Universe" means "ALL that exists." Please read this carefully and remember it for what is to follow. The definition does NOT mean "Part of what exists" nor "More than what exists" (We will come to this last statement in a moment). It means exactly ALL THAT EXISTS

This made me think of pronouncements like: "God is omniscient, he knows everything and that means exactly:
EVERYTHING". In other words: An arbitrary assertion.
Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? One cannot point at existence and say: "Those are the referents of the concept existence".


Further along you say:

So, as you see (no distortion here, see?), the universe is all that exists and this doesn’t allow for "another
World."


If the universe exists it must be something, and if it is something, it is something specific and thus not something else. Therefor it must have limits.
But if it is to encompass all future discoveries the limits must be flexible. You can see this is getting messy.

The solution for this is:" The universe ‘as such" does not exist".

As Rand said: "existence exist, and only existence exist"
John Galt said: There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe and that is: ‘Existence or non existence", to which a Dr of Theology once replied to me: "Ah, but I believe there is something in between"

I think that is the secret of all mystics, including Kant, they want to play it "deuces wild" whenever they feel like it.

The concept "Universe" means indeed ‘all that exists’ but the ‘Universe’ does not
exists as such.
It is an epistemological concept. A concept which allows us grasp "All that exists"
A concept of "method" pretty much as the concept "Zero" which also does not exist ‘out there".
Hope this is not too confused


Nick






Post 32

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine ,


If you are not interested in discussing your profession here, why do you keep on bringing it up yourself?

Quote:"Not that I love Kant, by any means- Kant is no friend to sex workers"

I wonder?




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 1:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Linz, I'm very glad that Jeanine agreed to having her letter posted, and that you wanted to do it. I am also glad that you wrote what you did.

I feel a bitter kind of sadness over this entire incident. I am sad for Jeanine, that she has been so badly hurt, now and in the past, by Objectivists. And I am sad that some of those who disagree with her express their disagreement in such cruel and hurtful terms. I have seen so much of the latter; and I have never understood why Objectivists, who are often savagely attacked for their ideas -- which are called immoral and worthless -- choose to use the terms of their enemies to attack their friends.

Barbara





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Having recommended SOLO HQ to Jeanine quite a while ago, as a forum on which she could find some respectful challenges (I'd previously participated in forums where she was not treated respectfully), I am saddened less by the substance, and more by the style and tone of the way in which this whole subject has been discussed.  Alas, it does not surprise me.  I have known Jeanine for years, I've seen this insensitivity before, and I will see it again.

I still participate here and I welcome the give-and-take.  We must come to expect that kind of free-wheeling exchange in a forum such as SOLO, which is among the most ecumenical forums I've ever encountered. 

I'm not so sure, however, that SOLOists could have "won over" Jeanine (I, myself, have stopped calling myself an "Objectivist" partially because of some of the attitudes I have seen expressed in "Objectivist" forums).  But I still thought the forum was enriched by her presence, and I'm sad to see her go.




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I cannot help but notice that no one has shrank from making immediate moral judgments of my having made the statements I made, I was not given 200 post worth of nonsense before being called on it.

 

Below are 2 of the most recent of literally dozens of similar lines by Mr. Ring:

 

Its such a shame that when she (Rand) turned to philosophy, she picked up terms with Christian-Platonist definitions and constructed an ethic for an inspirited golem instead of a human being. 

 

The point is, ultimately, that Objectivism is a patriarchy, deriving its concept of human nature from self-interest defined by necessity and accepting and even glorifying the bending of will and passion to that end ,…

 

These 2 quotes are only 2 of the most recent statements by Mr. Ring. The hand ringing mourning over his being insulted is fascinating to behold; given the literally dozens of insulting remarks he has made for months now. Mr. Rings statements showed more than a dollop of insensitivity to another person’s context, when he chose to speak this way on an objectivist forum; my feelings were hurt more than once by his style and tone, and I plan to write a treatise on how emotionally devastated I am from it! The lecture on lacking sensitivity in dealing with Mr. Ring’s so-called sexuality issues is also fascinating and borders on the surreal; like a bad episode of Jerry Springer.

 

Every statement I delivered to Mr. Ring was accurate and within ‘reality’. He is male, he is a theist, he is a hedonist, he does sell his body as a prostitute, and his so-called status as a courtesan is a joke to anyone but the most naïve of the naïve. Were my statements delivered with a stinging bluntness and purposeful ‘in your face’ approach, yes they were. But it was Mr. Ring that never tired of reminding us of such; post after post, and in the hundreds. Did it ever occur to him that at some point someone might actually call him on it?

 

The hypersensitive deference and understanding being given to Mr. Ring is amazing to behold. It's funny the things that some of us will tolerate with the patience of a Gandhi, while becoming enraged for far less. As for me, I was tired of the spectacle of a clever-dick smart-ass word-play wanker posturing as a philosopher - one Mr. Ring - a man that does not even have the guts to state his real name.

 

I’ll end with a quote, “If giving or withdrawing moral sanction for what we believe to be immoral is "prejudiced" or "bigoted", then so be it.” – Byron Garcia.

 

Sincerely, George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/21, 12:45pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George, the only thing I can say is this:  I am regularly accused of being overly sensitive to virtually everybody's context.  Some people would accuse me of showing "hypersensitive deference and understanding" to nearly all comers... including those who have routinely attacked me.  And, in truth, some of those attackers have not deserved my hypersensitive deference.  I'm learning.  :)

Nevertheless, my concern for style and tone has been expressed to supporters and critics alike. 

All I can say in response is this:  In my bedroom, I have a plaque which has been on the wall since I was 12 years old.  It says:


Indian Prayer

Grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I've walked a mile in his moccasins.
The prayer does not tell us not to judge; it just asks us to be sensitive to a person's context.  I have made this statement countless times in this forum to countless numbers of people:   It is not necessarily what we say, but how we say it.  I am not perfect myself, but I think all of us need to focus on the "how" as much as the "what."  The Bidinotto-Perigo dialogue, for example, went from guns-a-blazin' to a bit more understanding, and it's that kind of "reaching across the aisle" that is essential among fellow-travelers, and even curious onlookers, if we're to make a difference.

Cheers,
Chris




Post 37

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is no such thing as something being 'too valuable' to market - that's the tripe being offered as the excuse for government control of the medical industry, that viewing of a 'right' to medical care. 
Once again, the more things change, the more they stay the same - this issue of whether one can morally sell sex is one battered about for at least 40 years, from the time I remember the question asked if Dagny would sell her body and consider it moral.  The answer is - yes.  Why? Because there is only one act of social immorality - to coerce, and one act of personal morality - to be irrational. In a trader mindset, value is exchanged for value, noncoercively. Anything of high value has a high price -BUT - the value is personal, of the being which has it - NON OTHER.  It woulds be easy for one like Jeannie to write such an essay, and undoubtedly the one she wrote is a good one, and certainly more rational than the crap Hayden spouted.




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dear Next Level:

 

Dear me! Do I have to go into this question? After all: what is the Internet good for if it isn’t to find the answers for oneself? Just by entering Google and typing +"human eye" +”evolution” we get an enormous amount of information on the development of the eye (and all the other living beings, organs, etc. for that matter), for example:

 

http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_1.htm

http://www.athro.com/evo/gen/inherit1.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15595

http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

http://www4.d25.k12.id.us/phs/biology/humaneye.html

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/123440.htm

http://www.separationsnow.com/basehtml/SepH/1,,6-5-7-0-49662-ezine-0-2,00.html

 

Of course I could have started from there but by the time I was working on my writing “Ayn Rand, I and the Universe” I had behind me some four decades of reading books on the matter of which I just mention a very few, to say nothing of Darwin, of course: Isaac Asimov’s (to me, one of the greatest geniuses that ever existed) “Asimov’s New Guide to Science” and “The Wellsprings of Life” as well as most of his other books (yes, Science-Fiction too), scientific essays and articles, “The Language of Life” by George and Muriel Beadle (Beadle was Nobel Price in Medicine of 1958 and his book is very, very good, with one exception shich is not necessary to be mentioned here), Hoimar von Ditfurth’s “Im Anfang war der Wasserstoff” (“At the Beginning stands Hydrogen”) and “Der Geist fiel nicht vom Himmel” (“The Spirit did not descend from heaven”), and, and, and…

 

From one of the Internet pages above I quote:” As Charles Darwin would agree, the eye is indeed the result of an acceptable evolutionary process by gradual increase in complexity of a photoreceptor that changed one day into an awe-inspiring organ. Darwin himself said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory (natural selection) would absolutely break down, but I can find no such case."

 

But this goes far beyond what should be said. I by myself think that Ethan Dawe gave the shortest and most precise answer to your question. The question of Evolution, which is grounded directly on reality, has long been settled, as the “Monkey Trial” (1927, there’s a good picture of it by Spencer Tracy and Frederic March: “Inherit the Wind”) showed.

 

Good Internet surfing wishes and please don't get angry with me, Manfred.




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dear Pete: It is precisely BECAUSE Objectivism is now attacked from all fronts that we know the true situation. Would it be otherwise, as I mentioned in my article, the enemies would not care about dissecting and attacking Objectivism (Why should they; they would be feeling right and secure on their pedestals?). It is not a matter of HOW many people are in favor or against something but WHO is. And in this case we have already enough intellectuals, etc. preoccupied with Objectivism’s ideas supplying on the attack. As an example, please read the angry comments on those “Amazon” pages dealing with Ayn Rand books and books on Ayn Rand, her followers and treatises on Objectivism.

 

To give a graphic example of what I meant in my article: There is an anecdote in Spanish which people attribute to Cervantes’ “Don Quixote” but that can’t be found in the book itself. However, it perfectly conveys the spirit of the book. It goes like this:

Quixote and Sancho pass along the outskirts of a Spanish town when suddenly the dogs of the village start to bark. Sancho turns to Quixote and says: “Sir, they are barking at us”, to what Quixote replies: “It’s a sign that we are riding!”

 

And we, the Objectivist, are truly RIDING!”




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.