To Steve (Post 18) and William (Post 19): Prior to replying in detail your recent posts, I must ask you to reply with complete honesty the following question: Do you carry any tattoo? Please, no excuses and no beating around the bush.

To start with I will clear my position additionally: Religiosity and tattooism correspond to the same mentality running on parallel tracks, the difference merely being that while religious people think they are “embellishing” or “enhancing” their ‘souls’ with their faith, tattooists think they are “embellishing” or “enhancing” their bodies. Both evade stressing what characterizes or should characterize us as human beings: our mind, the faculty to reason. Most often religious and tattoo-carrying people mingle; thus, a survey determining how many religious people tattoo themselves against how many atheists do so would be most interesting… and, perhaps, even utmost revealing, in a way similar to the fact that only 1% of the prison population are atheists, while the vast majority of these cellblock inmates are religious and tattoo-minded.

Teresa (Post 20): You don’t need to know any female bodybuilder personally to reach an opinion about them, just as you don’t have to know Hitler, Stalin, Castro or any other Stalitler personally to reach an opinion about their evil mentality and misdeeds. Magazines, newspapers, TV, the Internet, etc. supply sufficient information for it. I lived most of my live under the rule of dictator Perón’s regime but although I never met him personally, I learned very early and very thoroughly its full badness.

Your comment is, thus, most inappropriate for the high intellectual standard “RoR” has or, I should rather say, used to have, for since you became their editor, a most noticeable intellectual downgrading became evident. The place no longer bristles with all those deep burrowing writings (excepting those of Machan and Younkins who are also, unfortunately, becoming scarce) and its frontispiece became a this-age Movietone Newsreel, instead of what its real purpose should be: the warring forefront of people fighting to establish a full-fledged Objectivist society in the very shortest possible time.

P.S. in general: I noticed that my finger slipped when I wrote my quote, for “tattoo” carries, of course, a double-t. Sorry for the slip. Could the management, perhaps, correct it? I would welcome it.

tattooists think they are “embellishing” or “enhancing” their bodies.

Both [Christians and people with Tattoos] evade stressing what characterizes or should characterize us as human beings: our mind, the faculty to reason.

Most often religious and tattoo-carrying people mingle; thus, a survey determining how many religious people tattoo themselves against how many atheists do so would be most interesting… and, perhaps, even utmost revealing, in a way similar to the fact that only 1% of the prison population are atheists, while the vast majority of these cellblock inmates are religious and tattoo-minded.

To Mike (Post 30): No, I never said anywhere nor did I even imply that female bodybuilders are evil. Why should I have done so? There isn’t the slightest evidence for them to be evil.

To Steve (Posts 31 & 32): “People that diet or do moderate exercise, etc.”: The examples you mention do not apply to what I say, for a tattoo is PERMANENT while you refer to things that can be stopped at any time or, in the case of makeup, etc., washed off.

“Where is your evidence of this psychological trait?”: Please read what I wrote correctly. There’s the answer all by itself. The psychological trait involved proves and is the evidence.

“…and you turn around and in the absence of such evidence…”: I don’t “turn around” at all. First of all, it’s well known that prison inmates are – no always, but generally – tattooed. What other motives they may have, apart from their psychological trait that moves them to tattoo themselves for “aesthetical” motives, could be of eventual interest to psychologists and prison wardens, etc. but not to me.  Further on, you won’t find in the whole of my writing any wish of mine to hold a survey that would prove me right (or wrong). I don’t need such a survey. I said that it “would be interesting,” “would” being a conditional, not an imperative. A survey would eventually be interesting, but I neither need it nor do I care if it is ever made or not. As I said, “would” is a conditional, NOT an imperative (From the Webster: Used to express a supposition or conditional).

A generalization doesn’t need to hold true across the genus (Hence, see my reply to Jules on Post 23: “The exception proves the rule”), for if it were, it would not be a generalization but a specification. Here, again, I refer you to Abu l-Ala al-Ma'arri's generalization which specifies two genuses, this being necessary so he can determine about what he will generalize (Religion & Brain). Hence, not the concepts in themselves but Ma’arri’s conclusion about them is the generalization.

“No. It isn’t.”: What I write IS good Objectivism. Prove me IN DETAIL that I’m wrong.

To Steve (Post 34): More washable/removable decoration examples? I give it up. So much illogical “logic” beats me. Bye, bye…

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 2/23, 11:57pm)