Rand's Kind of Censorship!


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Why are you pretending Jonathan didn't provide an alternative to legal ordinances and their enforcement? Because Rand didn't?

--Brant

"..a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults". AR

Has anyone mentioned children at all? Because the main point has been conveniently forgotten in the Rand-lambasting.

In my opinion, no adult has the right to never be offended. But it's not about any adult, it is about parents desiring to give their children an innocent, gradual access into the world. For some parent trying to keep his kids from unwanted intrusions of porn on TV or in public spaces, (by J.s solution) it is incumbent on HIM to organise, rally supporters, block sidewalks, raise money, purchase property, and so on. In the end it comes down to which gang makes the biggest noise and manipulates the most power - and that undermines rule of law. If the big bad "initiator of force", the government, simply lays down a by-law for displays of explicit sexuality, easy-peasy and no problemo, everyone knows where they stand. Occasionally, it will be challenged in court. But let's not get sanctimonious about "censorship" and "freedom", they are more important than this porn pettiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, anthony said:

"..a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults". AR

Has anyone mentioned children at all? Because the main point has been conveniently forgotten in the Rand-lambasting.

In my opinion, no adult has the right to never be offended. But it's not about any adult, it is about parents desiring to give their children an innocent, gradual access into the world. For some parent trying to keep his kids from unwanted intrusions of porn on TV or in public spaces, (by J.s solution) it is incumbent on HIM to organise, rally supporters, block sidewalks, raise money, purchase property, and so on. In the end it comes down to which gang makes the biggest noise and manipulates the most power - and that undermines rule of law. If the big bad "initiator of force", the government, simply lays down a by-law for displays of explicit sexuality, easy-peasy and no problemo, everyone knows where they stand. Occasionally, it will be challenged in court. But let's not get sanctimonious about "censorship" and "freedom", they are more important than this porn pettiness.

It's not pettiness. It's about "There ought to be a law" mentality that infects 99.9999 per cent of the human-interested population, even Ayn Rand. In her heart of hearts Rand was much more conservative than she ever acknowledged. I think part of that was getting older and, more significantly, a reaction to left-leaning anarchical libertarians who had no inhibitions about taking her politics to the logical extreme. But, as she once said of Ludwig von Mises respecting their disagreements: "He has done enough."

--Brant

I say, "and she couldn't do any more"

oh, BTW, it is incumbent on you; you're the one with smoke coming out of your ears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016/04/24 at 4:45 AM, Brant Gaede said:

It's not pettiness. It's about "There ought to be a law" mentality that infects 99.9999 per cent of the human-interested population, even Ayn Rand. In her heart of hearts Rand was much more conservative than she ever acknowledged. I think part of that was getting older and, more significantly, a reaction to left-leaning anarchical libertarians who had no inhibitions about taking her politics to the logical extreme. But, as she once said of Ludwig von Mises respecting their disagreements: "He has done enough."

--Brant

I say, "and she couldn't do any more"

oh, BTW, it is incumbent on you; you're the one with smoke coming out of your ears

It struck me that we may be arguing from different sides of the fence: as things are - and as things should be, in that laissez-faire, individual rights, future. Anticipating, philosophising and future-gazing to a time of minimal governments is essential and right for many reasons, but we live in the real here and now and have to be careful that arguments don't get caught in a cross-contextual time-warp.

It's clear enough that Rand in her Letter was applying only 'today's' society (the US in the 70's, actually), to the issue. So, she was acknowledging things 'as they are', i.e., with mixed economy, 'public' thoroughfares - and that contradiction in terms - "Public//Property". To back my supposition, she also wrote/spoke somewhere about the police having the right and obligation to remove war protestors who had blocked -public- streets with their bodies. To me this all explains Rand's "conservatism" and ~perceived~ "self-contradiction" in her Letter.

Then again, projecting forward, when or until everything is privately owned, and someone owns the street on which, let's assume, he also owns a property, he can rightfully display anything his heart desires from the said property.

From the Letter: "... of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting and has nothing to do with censorship i.e. with prohibiting thought and speech".

("Censorship" of such public displays, is a red-herring, I think; you can think, say, do and create whatever you want, no one is prohibiting that. It is the automatic, prior consent of *the audience* that is being demanded here, and some won't grant it--if they knew what they'll be seeing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 23, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Max said:

Ah, the libertarian utopia, where people no doubt are also free to masturbate in public. I live in the real world, however, where I have to deal with other people with different opinions, and where compromise is inevitable, especially in cases where standards cannot be proved to be "correct". The viewpoint "therefore no standards at all" won't get you very far, I'm afraid.
 

Are you trying to make an argument? From here, it looks like you're just emoting, avoiding philosophy and the concept of rights, and preaching some sort of go along to get along pragmatism.

"I live in the real world where people want other people's money, so therefore it's okay for them to take money away from others. Opposing them won't get you very far, I'm afraid."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 24, 2016 at 7:54 PM, anthony said:

"..a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults". AR

Has anyone mentioned children at all? Because the main point has been conveniently forgotten in the Rand-lambasting.

"Rand-lambasting"? Hahaha!!!!!

If someone points out a contradiction of Rand's, then they're not practicing the Objectivist virtue of identifying reality, but the vice of "Rand-lambasting."

Too funny!

But, anyway, yes, let's do everything for "the children!" They must be protected from everything at all costs, including the cost of individual rights, property rights, and freedom of expression! It's much too difficult and unreasonable to expect parents to be responsible for protecting their children by their own standards and judgments! No, we need government imposing a one-size-fits all set of rules on everyone, based on Ayn Rand's personal reactions to sexual content, and no one else's! Anyone who has greater sensitivities to such content is a "Mrs. Grundy," and anyone who has lesser sensitivity than Rand is getting all "sanctimonious about 'censorship' and 'freedom.'" Hilarious!

 

On April 24, 2016 at 7:54 PM, anthony said:

In my opinion, no adult has the right to never be offended. But it's not about any adult, it is about parents desiring to give their children an innocent, gradual access into the world. For some parent trying to keep his kids from unwanted intrusions of porn on TV or in public spaces, (by J.s solution) it is incumbent on HIM to organise, rally supporters, block sidewalks, raise money, purchase property, and so on. In the end it comes down to which gang makes the biggest noise and manipulates the most power - and that undermines rule of law. If the big bad "initiator of force", the government, simply lays down a by-law for displays of explicit sexuality, easy-peasy and no problemo, everyone knows where they stand. Occasionally, it will be challenged in court. But let's not get sanctimonious about "censorship" and "freedom", they are more important than this porn pettiness.

Parents don't have the "right" to give their children an "innocent, gradual access into the world" at others' expense. Their desire to raise their children in a certain way doesn't override others' property rights.

And, yes, if a parent wishes to protect his child from anything which he deems inappropriate, then it is his responsibility to do so. It is incumbent on him to navigate and avoid any materials that he finds offensive, rather than using initiatory force to compel others to not be offensive with their own property.

Heh. But you don't seem to like the idea of private property, and of freedom of expression. You seem to be just now discovering that there would be individual responsibilities involved under a system of individualism, truly private property, and liberty -- responsibilities that you've don't like, and from which you enjoying being relieved of under the current statist system. You're starting to realize that you don't like liberty, that you're too damned lazy to accept the responsibilities that liberty requires, and that you'd prefer to instantly run to government to solve even the most minor of problems which you've blown way out of proportion (children are going to be psychologically destroyed by discovering the notion of human sexuality prior to the age which you think is acceptable, and sex is going to be everywhere if there aren't laws against its public display, and anyone who criticizes your eagerness to run to government and demand initiation of force is being "sanctimonious!").

Tony, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

"... there would be ..."[...] "sanctimonious!").

 

Only two truthful remarks I see in your tirade, J.
"There would be",

and

"Sanctimonious"

Indeed, "there ~would~ be...", WHEN there is individual rights and fully private property. For now, a street is a public auditorium, I believe. You talk as if libertarianism will come into practice simply by invoking "property rights" as well as by 'testing' the public on things they'd rather avoid. But until that time, your 'educational' trial by fire is going to put more people off the implementation of individual rights, than put them on. You harm your own cause, by trivialising freedom.

Read my last post.

There was a context to Rand's remarks, of a time and a place, which blows your theory of her 'self-contradiction', out of the water I think. I agree with her, that it's a matter of ~etiquette~ that adults are warned, at least, of graphic or pornographic images before they encounter them. Once seen, it's too late and an image can be hard to forget. Especially if it is seen by some to debase mankind. People have imagination, so it doesn't mean an evasion of reality - and more, they mature and learn and change at their own pace and don't need another person's authoritarian edicts of what they should see and when they should see it.

For me, I'm easy-going and soon bored by sex displays - but I avoid brutality, it "disgusts" me and find I'm losing my resistance to it as I get older, maybe I've seen enough for real. So far, I have managed to avoid watching any filmed beheading by those savages (because of the warnings, happily) and intend keeping it that way. But nothing disgusts you, I must infer.

 Has everyone to become a voyeur to satisfy some person's ideas of freedom of expression?

"It is the automatic, prior consent of an "audience" that is being demanded here..." - I repeat. I.e., their "sanction". However, nobody is permitted to withdraw his consent in advance, and we are pressed to see whatever some exhibitionist wishes us to see ... on "his property". Or else, well, it's "censorship"!.

Heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Children should also be protected by law from seeing pets and farm animals (and insects) and wild animals copulate.

I assume you are being sarcastic or making a joke.  Seeing farm animals copulating and giving birth is a major step in educating one's self.  I remember watching a cow give birth to a calf,  and then eating the afterbirth (cows are usually do not eat flesh).  I also saw my beloved female cat Hypatia give birth (that must have been 55 years ago).   The best way to teach about the birds and the bees is seeing the birds and bees go at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

There was a context to Rand's remarks, of a time and a place, which blows your theory of her 'self-contradiction', out of the water I think. I agree with her, that it's a matter of ~etiquette~ that adults are warned, at least, of graphic or pornographic images before they encounter them.

I see. You're saying that if you call government-enforced rules "etiquette," then it doesn't count as legislating morality? It doesn't count as initiating force against people's property rights if you soften it by pretending that "it's a matter of etiquette" (a word which implies voluntary choice)?

Heh. The initiatory force part of the equation doesn't magically disappear by calling it something other than what it is. Did you not notice that Rand's quote on the subject mentions the words "legislation" and "rules" and "required"?

That's not "etiquette," but "law." An issue of "etiquette" would involve only the types of solutions that I suggested earlier -- social pressure, boycotts, etc., all of which do not make use of the initiation of force.

J

The Fountainhead contains a rape scene. Unsuspecting adults and innocent children should be protected from suddenly encountering that scene. Therefore the novel should be required by law to have a warning on its cover, it should not be available to anyone under 18, and it should be limited to being sold in the "adults only" sections of bookstores. That's where this little theory of people having the right to be protected by law from material that they might find "loathsome" logically ends up. It's a theory that contradicts Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

The Fountainhead contains a rape scene. Unsuspecting adults and innocent children should be protected from suddenly encountering that scene. Therefore the novel should be required by law to have a warning on its cover, it should not be available to anyone under 18, and it should be limited to being sold in the "adults only" sections of bookstores. That's where this little theory of people having the right to be protected by law from material that they might find "loathsome" logically ends up. It's a theory that contradicts Objectivism.

Parents and better judges of what their children should read.   I have four children (now all middle aged)  and when they were growing up I never forbade any book.  My parents let me read whatever I wanted to read.  The last thing we need are -laws- permitting this reading and forbidding that reading.  That is the short route to tyranny and dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Are you trying to make an argument? From here, it looks like you're just emoting, avoiding philosophy and the concept of rights, and preaching some sort of go along to get along pragmatism.

"I live in the real world where people want other people's money, so therefore it's okay for them to take money away from others. Opposing them won't get you very far, I'm afraid."

J

I guess I just no longer believe in fairy tales.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I see. You're saying that if you call government-enforced rules "etiquette," then it doesn't count as legislating morality? It doesn't count as initiating force against people's property rights if you soften it by pretending that "it's a matter of etiquette" (a word which implies voluntary choice)?

Heh. The initiatory force part of the equation doesn't magically disappear by calling it something other than what it is. Did you not notice that Rand's quote on the subject mentions the words "legislation" and "rules" and "required"?

That's not "etiquette," but "law." An issue of "etiquette" would involve only the types of solutions that I suggested earlier -- social pressure, boycotts, etc., all of which do not make use of the initiation of force.

J

The Fountainhead contains a rape scene. Unsuspecting adults and innocent children should be protected from suddenly encountering that scene. Therefore the novel should be required by law to have a warning on its cover, it should not be available to anyone under 18, and it should be limited to being sold in the "adults only" sections of bookstores. That's where this little theory of people having the right to be protected by law from material that they might find "loathsome" logically ends up. It's a theory that contradicts Objectivism.

Yup.  This is true.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016/04/26 at 2:37 AM, Jonathan said:

I see. You're saying that if you call government-enforced rules "etiquette," then it doesn't count as legislating morality? It doesn't count as initiating force against people's property rights if you soften it by pretending that "it's a matter of etiquette" (a word which implies voluntary choice)?

Heh. The initiatory force part of the equation doesn't magically disappear by calling it something other than what it is. Did you not notice that Rand's quote on the subject mentions the words "legislation" and "rules" and "required"?

That's not "etiquette," but "law." An issue of "etiquette" would involve only the types of solutions that I suggested earlier -- social pressure, boycotts, etc., all of which do not make use of the initiation of force.

J

The Fountainhead contains a rape scene. Unsuspecting adults and innocent children should be protected from suddenly encountering that scene. Therefore the novel should be required by law to have a warning on its cover, it should not be available to anyone under 18, and it should be limited to being sold in the "adults only" sections of bookstores. That's where this little theory of people having the right to be protected by law from material that they might find "loathsome" logically ends up. It's a theory that contradicts Objectivism.

A free society is also a civil society, and viewing by-laws as "government enforcement" and "legislating morality" is the sort of muddled, alarmist thinking that can justify any uncivil behavior - and even anarchy. This makes a mantra out of "property rights" as if they aren't a derivation from morality, but the base of it. An individual must as much "be free of his brother" as to be free from government (which is the same thing basically).

Does one have the moral right to disturb others' peace or to shock others, from one's property? Is the answer to a constantly loud neighbor who regularly party's through the night at his home and doesn't respond to your polite requests, to "boycott" him and put "social pressure" on him, or to move elsewhere - only to find a similar problem? Are those the only recourses one should have? Some "civil society" you'll get, every man subjectively for himself and "screw you, I can do what I wish. I have property rights!"

"A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen". ['Letters']

"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to ~enforce~ certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area". ['The Nature of Government']

Hmm: "Contradicts Objectivism"? Really?

In society I think one (broadly) finds those who (like Aristotle), "do without being commanded what others do from fear of the law". Then, those who do most things (or everything) from "fear of the law". And then, those who do whatever they want - with little fear of the law. The first group don't need to "be asked twice", as they are rationally moral and understand in advance the potential of some others' discomfit at gratuitous sensory/conscious intrusions, as they well know their own. Anyway, I think the need to confront, shock and 'educate' all other people, involuntarily ~ for very reason ~ of their annoyance or discomfiture, is ultimately second-handed or childish behavior.

(A novel is a weak analogy - reading isn't an instant intake of eye and mind, of one whole, as is the picture, you should know. One can stop reading in mid-sentence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016/04/26 at 4:26 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Parents and better judges of what their children should read.   I have four children (now all middle aged)  and when they were growing up I never forbade any book.  My parents let me read whatever I wanted to read.  The last thing we need are -laws- permitting this reading and forbidding that reading.  That is the short route to tyranny and dictatorship.

Well and good Bob - but you miss the point. This thread isn't about anyone forbidding anything and "censorship" (that was smuggled in) - it's about freedom of choice of what you want to see, and not want to see.. Plainly and honestly advertising with "adult" signs, the graphic content of some show or exhibition, is the route to tyranny? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, anthony said:

Well and good - but you miss the point. This thread isn't about anyone forbidding anything and "censorship" (that was smuggled in) - it's about freedom of choice of what you want to see, and not want to see.. Plainly and honestly advertising with "adult" signs, the graphic content of some show or exhibition, is the route to tyranny? I don't think so.

You were the one who brought up law and law is almost always the road to tyranny.  First there are good and sensible laws which are soon followed by laws that bind and enslave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ode to a stroll

What a glorious sight ! Nothing as pretty as a rose bush a-bloom, thank thee fine neighbor, thank thee !!

What a treacherous corner now turned , a bloomerless bush, the horror! someone shall pay I decree

(more suessish than intended)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anthony said:

A free society is also a civil society, and viewing by-laws as "government enforcement" and "legislating morality" is the sort of muddled, alarmist thinking that can justify any uncivil behavior - and even anarchy. 

Your "civil society" argument, and your silly smearing of the consistent application of Objectivism as "alarmist thinking," can be used to justify any government intrusion into freedom of expression. Rand and you won't be the ones in control of defining which sights or literary passages count as being "offensive" or "loathsome."

It is kind of fun to see a Rand-idolizer using the common leftist tactic of trying to smear an opponent as being an "alarmist" if he opposes just a little, itsy bitsy, harmless government intrusion into people's lives.

 

Quote

This makes a mantra out of "property rights" as if they aren't a derivation from morality, but the base of it. An individual must as much "be free of his brother" as to be free from government (which is the same thing basically).

No, it doesn't make a "mantra out of property rights as if the aren't a derivation from morality." You always make that same stupid argument. It's as if you believe that if someone doesn't recite the entire Objectivist basis for property rights, then they are basing their view of property rights on something else.

Um, dippy, a person's being "free of his brother" means to be free from being forcefully mandated by one's "brother" and Ayn Rand to do with one's own property what they command based on their personal tastes and tender sensitivities.

In previous discussions on this topic of Rand's contradicting Objectivism, I gave this example of the half-baked "loathsome" principle being applied consistently: 

"The privately owned temple which was built by that defiant new architect is an abomination! It will spiritually harm many citizens of this city for generations to come, and spiritual harm is just as damaging as physical harm, if not more so. There should be a law which requires that architects get design approval from a state board of governors before building."

That's where this silly shit leads. Heh. It's always funny when Rand and her acolytes take a position that is Toohey-esque.

 

Quote

Does one have the moral right to disturb others' peace or to shock others, from one's property? Is the answer to a constantly loud neighbor who regularly party's through the night at his home...

Are you unaware of the fact that there is a difference between sound and images?

Loud sounds which exit one's property have an actual physical effect on others and their properties. Just as one can't leak unwanted liquids or gases onto others' property because of their physical effects, one can't leak physically disrupting sound waves onto others' property. Get it? Images which are on one person's property don't have a physical effect on another's person or property. Physical disruption is a violation of individual and property rights (you might want to review the Objectivist position of stressing the physical in regard to issues of rights). Psychological disruption, on the other hand, is not a violation of individual or property rights. Images which Rand thought of as "offensive" do not physically affect others. Being offended is a psychological effect.

 

Quote

"A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen". ['Letters']

Indeed, one has the right "not to look." That means don't look. It means stop looking. When confronted with sights one finds "loathsome," the solution is to look away, to shut one's eyes, to cover one's children's eyes, to leave the area, etc. Having the right to "not look" means exactly that, and NOT that one has the right to FORCE others to not display on their property whatever one finds "loathsome."

 

Quote

"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to ~enforce~ certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area". ['The Nature of Government']

Hmm: "Contradicts Objectivism"? Really?

Yes, really!

The government, under Objectivism, does indeed have the power to enforce certain rules, but those rules must comply with individual and property rights. Objectivism specifically spells out how government has a very well-defined and limited role, and that it is not to initiate force, including over something so whimsical as preventing people from being offended.

 

Quote

In society I think one (broadly) finds those who (like Aristotle), "do without being commanded what others do from fear of the law". Then, those who do most things (or everything) from "fear of the law". And then, those who do whatever they want - with little fear of the law. The first group don't need to "be asked twice", as they are rationally moral and understand in advance the potential of some others' discomfit at gratuitous sensory/conscious intrusions, as they well know their own. Anyway, I think the need to confront, shock and 'educate' all other people, involuntarily ~ for very reason ~ of their annoyance or discomfiture, is ultimately second-handed or childish behavior.

Heh. Way to irrationally frame the subject!

As if the only motive that a person might have in displaying an image that others find offensive is to "confront" and "shock." You're begging the question by assuming that the shocked person is normal and objective or whatever, and that the person who is displaying an image is doing so for nefarious reasons. That's a stupid tactic. Try to think it through logically, Tony. Can you think of other motivations, like, say, where the property owner is simply displaying something that he finds to be beautiful, and that if there is any "shock" involved, it is experienced by him when he discovers that there are actually people who are willing to use force to prevent him from publicly showing what he thinks is beautiful?

 

Quote

(A novel is a weak analogy - reading isn't an instant intake of eye and mind, of one whole, as is the picture, you should know. One can stop reading in mid-sentence).

Heh. One can also stop looking mid-glance! You're hilarious, Tony. Ayn's little helper choosing Rand over reality every time! Under Rand's misapplication of Objectivism on this issue, her own novels should be relegated to the "adults only section."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Well and good - but you miss the point. This thread isn't about anyone forbidding anything and "censorship" (that was smuggled in) - it's about freedom of choice of what you want to see, and not want to see.. Plainly and honestly advertising with "adult" signs, the graphic content of some show or exhibition, is the route to tyranny? I don't think so.

Then you have no problem with government-mandated warning stickers being required on Rand's novels, right? You have no problem with her novels being required, by the force of government, to be sold only in "adults only" sections of bookstores, right?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A trip to countries like germany might be educational for some. You would find lots of nudity on very public display, including ads for brothels and sex clubs. And guess what? It's not a big deal. Glance away if you don't like it. No one is being traumatized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thorn said:

A trip to countries like germany might be educational for some. You would find lots of nudity on very public display, including ads for brothels and sex clubs. And guess what? It's not a big deal. Glance away if you don't like it. No one is being traumatized.

Quite germane to the debate. But. 1. the differing norms of society and at varying times I've mentioned (you can't please everyone all the time). 2. whoever implied nudity is distasteful or shocking?! 3. with foreknowledge, the prude can avoid going by those parks 4. is there any live sex permitted in those public places (like with barnyard animals)? 5. Exactly. "Ads" for brothels and sex clubs is in line with Rand's suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Then you have no problem with government-mandated warning stickers being required on Rand's novels, right? You have no problem with her novels being required, by the force of government, to be sold only in "adults only" sections of bookstores, right?

J

Getting more absurd. Is this what 'electron chasing' is? By no norm of society (outside the most repressed/inhibited) was Rand's novel, pornographic/disgusting. Also, you really don't know the difference between reading a book and seeing a picture...? Or the similarity between offensive sound and an offensive sight?

Like, there is a common consciousness hearing and vision share?

"One can also stop looking mid-glance". ha!

And yes. Every bookshop has a children's section distinct from 'adults', without (as far as I know) government "force".

That's what one may call voluntary "etiquette".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Getting more absurd. Is this what 'electron chasing' is?

No. "Electron chasing" is when Ellen can't see the forest, but not merely because of focusing on the trees, but because of focusing on one electron at a time in one of the atoms in one of the molecules in one of the cells in one of the leaves on one of the trees. In this discussion, I'm not addressing one minor element, but the "big picture" issue at hand. So, the idea isn't to just throw a term that I've used in my own face because you hope that it's going to be upsetting to me. The term would actually have to apply to the situation. See how that works?

 

Quote

By no norm of society (outside the most repressed/inhibited) was Rand's novel, pornographic/disgusting. Also, you really don't know the difference between reading a book and seeing a picture...? Or the similarity between offensive sound and an offensive sight?

I say otherwise. The rape scene was offensive and loathsome. I know loathsome porn when I see it. Why do you want children to have access to porn? What's wrong with you, you fricking pervert? They're innocent and fragile, and you want them to be able to buy books with rape scenes where the rapist is a "hero"? You sick bastard!

 

Quote

"One can also stop looking mid-glance". ha!

One can indeed stop looking mid-glance. That's reality. It's very easy to look away.

Hmmm. Are you saying that, personally, you can't look away from something that you find to be loathsome? If so, you should work on that. Learn how to exercise your volition.

 

Quote

And yes. Every bookshop has a children's section distinct from 'adults', without (as far as I know) government "force".

Heh. You're equivocating. No one was talking about bookstores having children's sections distinct from adults sections. The concept being discussed was "adults only" sections. You either left off the "only" part on purpose, or you're a lazy and sloppy thinker. At Barnes and Noble, and any other typical bookstore with children's and adult's sections, children are not prohibited from going into the adult's section. Understand now? See, Rand's idea was to use the initiatory force of government to compel shop owners to put "offensive" and "loathsome" material into a section which would exclude children.

Damn, try to pay attention!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand is much more excusable than Randians.

She trapped herself in a massive matrix of her own devising. Randians had to go in the front door and had plenty of chances to reconsider this and reconsider that and to choose living in their own houses or hers.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Well and good Bob - but you miss the point. This thread isn't about anyone forbidding anything and "censorship" (that was smuggled in) - it's about freedom of choice of what you want to see, and not want to see.. Plainly and honestly advertising with "adult" signs, the graphic content of some show or exhibition, is the route to tyranny? I don't think so.

Not thinking in principles in a logical manner certainly is.

You need to admit you object to the principle--non initiation of force (non violation of rights)--and defend that, at least as exception making, to have an honest discussion. Absent that, Jonathan will continue to have a field day over your prognostications. Right now you are coming across like a conservative. Rand frequently did too.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

 

 

One can indeed stop looking mid-glance. That's reality. It's very easy to look away.

Hmmm. Are you saying that, personally, you can't look away from something that you find to be loathsome? If so, you should work on that. Learn how to exercise your volition.

 

 

J

I find this very revealing, (especially coming as it is from an artist). Yes: it is doable to exercise the muscles of one's eyes and neck - and look away... physically. And it is the primacy of consciousness to believe that when I close my eyes and look away, some 'thing' (or existence) ceases to exist, unless/until I look once more.

But your suggestion denies the obvious fact of sense and perception too, that a visual impact is immediate - and - lasting in man's consciousness.*

As for volition, you're one who said earlier: "Having deep feelings about someone's showing a naughty picture? Well, get over it!"

Why, who says one must? Who dictates the authority of when and what must be gotten over? Is this volition? However, each person has to adjust to reality for himself. But it shows me that this concern about "censorship" you have, is actually the need to pressure others into agreement with your standards of taste. So, not volition! Not free choice, not free thinking.

*Because I keep seeing the same 'meme' repeating, regarding "consciousness", I have to quote a fitting statement:

"The implicit, but unadmitted premise of modern philosophy is the notion that "true" knowledge must be acquired without any means of cognition, and that identity is the ~disqualifying~ element of consciousness". [ITOE]

*Identity is the ~disqualifying~ element of consciousness*. Yup. To have eyes, but not look. To look, but not see. To see, but not think. To think, but not feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now