Rand on Protecting the Offended

[sjw]

Another approach to this problem is akin to zoning laws. When you buy a property, it can under Capitalism be subject to certain rules that you agree to at the time of purchase. One of those rules could be that you didn't publicly display pornography.

I personally think this is probably the right approach. For one thing, you should follow Ockham's Razor when making new laws--if an existing law already solves the rights problem, then you should use that law and not make a new one. But also there's the problem that morons, who seem to run amok not only in the world at large but also in Objectivist circles, can't understand moderately sophisticated arguments such as any based on the psychological nature of man's mind.

Shayne

[sjw]

Nobody's a moron, much less Jonathan. On the contrary, he is an extremely talented painter and producer of values.

He might not be a moron, he's certainly acted like one in this thread.

Please, let's raise the level.

Yes, please let's. I hate calling people morons, but when the argument level drops beneath a certain point, calling someone a moron is all there is left to say.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

.... calling someone a moron is all there is left to say.

I can't imagine this ever being the case.

[Jonathan]

I can fathom that porn might have negative psychological effects on a child, just as I can fathom that the rape scene in The Fountainhead might have a negative effect on a child. <snip>

This just proves you can't hold context, more proof that you're a moron. The context was: pictures of things that someone might accidentally see. You can't accidentally read a book, or watch the news, etc.

One certainly can accidentally see horrific images on the news. That's precisely what happened to me in the department store incident that I related. See, as a child I was in a publicly accessible department store and saw quite shocking images of people being killed in Vietnam. It was not uncommon for news programs to show such images back in those days. Some of the store's televisions which were tuned to the same news program were also in a window display and would have been visible to anyone passing by in the street, including children. Do you get it now? It was a public space and horrific images were being displayed on a program generally known to show such images. Understand?

And a child could indeed accidentally stumble across adult content in a book. Without laws requiring that books be placed in "adults only" sections, a child could start reading a book without knowing that it contained "adult content." I read The Fountainhead when I was young. I didn't know that it contained a rape scene until after I read the rape scene. See, that's how it works with books. If there is no warning about what they contain, and if there are no laws preventing minors from buying them, then a child wouldn't know what they contained until after he had read them. Get it now?

Care to try again, or would you rather quit while you're way behind?

Heh. Care to answer some of the questions that I've asked but which you've avoided answering so far? Should The Three Little Pigs be banned or relegated to the "adults only" section if the book results in demonstrably more "negative psychological effects" in children than images of naked people? Should the cover of The Three Little Pigs be banned from being displayed in book store windows if some children are traumatized by it? Should works of classic fiction which contain themes or scenes that the government has decided are inappropriate for minors be required to carry warning labels, and be available only to adults?

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Certainly, we should ban the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc on mental health grounds. Criminal penalties for televangelism.

W.

[sjw]

Care to answer some of the questions that I've asked but which you've avoided answering so far?

I'm not going to waste my time answering dishonest questions. The most I'd do is point out why they are dishonest. E.g., you represent porn as "naked people". I don't think that mere naked people could disturb a child, but there are some really sick people out there and what they'd depict would disturb any sane person. You are of course aware of this, you choose not to recognize it, because you only wish to rationalize your moronic position.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

there are some really sick people out there and what they'd depict would disturb any sane person. You are of course aware of this,

Do I understand this correctly? Shayne knows there are really sick people, knows what the really sick people would depict, and assuming that Shayne is a sane person, he has already seen it and been disturbed by it, though not when Shayne was a child, or otherwise he might have been scarred for life, and further that Shayne knows that Jonathan knows that there are really sick people who would depict awful stuff that persumably Shayne has already seen.

Correct so far?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

Let's open a church.

I know how to play the guilt card and I am studying Cialdini and Sugarman to refine those skills.

Of course, some things can't be improved. Like the others, we would have to ban sex, but look the other way when it is insinuated. Lots of leeway and totally arbitrary enforcement. That really screws with people's heads.

We could make a killing on tithes.

Michael

[sjw]

Do I understand this correctly? Shayne knows there are really sick people, knows what the really sick people would depict, and assuming that Shayne is a sane person, he has already seen it and been disturbed by it, though not when Shayne was a child, or otherwise he might have been scarred for life, and further that Shayne knows that Jonathan knows that there are really sick people who would depict awful stuff that persumably Shayne has already seen.

So I take it that there are people in this forum who approve of little children viewing XXXX porn.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So I take it that there are people in this forum who approve of little children viewing XXXX porn.

Shayne,

I seriously doubt it.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

So I take it that there are people in this forum who approve of little children viewing XXXX porn.

As far as I know, XXX is usually an overstated claim, and I've never seen anything in Europe or the US advertised with four x's. Maybe it's a recent innovation. Just goes to show, if you take your eye off the porn market, even for half an hour, sure as heck they'll do something even worser and more awful.

I have a six year old daughter. I don't let her watch PG-rated videos, only G-rated ones. We don't watch broadcast or cable TV, except in hotel rooms (Nick Jr and Animal Planet are okay, Fox and Cartoon Network are not). My wife and I purposely selected a neighborhood that has no adult bookstore, no taverns, gangbangers, street drugs, schoolyard bullies, or broken glass on the sidewalk. Instead, we have a Leave It To Beaver clean environment with parks and playgrounds, occasionally sexed up with a trip downtown or halfway around the world, in which case we try to explain whatever ugliness or shabbiness we may encounter together. I don't let her wander off unsupervised. At the moment she is particularly insistent that I explain how cream cheese is made. I told her we would look it up on the computer today when she gets home from school. Yesterday she wanted to know the sequence of birth, nursing, learning to talk, being a kid, and how to become a mommy herself someday.

If you're asking me about other people's children? Pretty sad. My friend Richard started life in a ghetto, leaky roof, freezing cold, rats running around his bed at night. Later went to an orphanage. Fathered children of his own that he abandoned. He's miserable. Chronically unhappy and angry. Had nothing to do with exposure to pornography. I've seen more of it than he has, and frankly Shayne you ought to know that porno is a hokey, stupid shadow of the Real Deal which is intimate sexual behavior in private. Should kids be excluded from adult bedrooms? Sure.

The problem is parenting, not pornography.

W.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Jonathan]

I'm not going to waste my time answering dishonest questions. The most I'd do is point out why they are dishonest. E.g., you represent porn as "naked people". I don't think that mere naked people could disturb a child, but there are some really sick people out there and what they'd depict would disturb any sane person. You are of course aware of this, you choose not to recognize it, because you only wish to rationalize your moronic position.

Would it be a waste of your time to define "pornography" so that we know exactly which types of images or literature you think are acceptable for government to ban or control? The history of people wanting to regulate things due to sexual content hasn't been limited to "really sick" stuff that would "disturb any sane person." It has often been mere images of "naked people." In fact, in the U.S., it is currently mere images of "naked people."

So, if you can manage to control your emotions long enough, would you mind giving at least a rough definition of pornography and an idea of which standards your ideal government would use to decide which types of writings and images should be publicly forbidden under punishment of law?

So I take it that there are people in this forum who approve of little children viewing XXXX porn.

No, I personally don't approve of children viewing XXXX porn. Nor do I approve of a government deciding what is or is not porn. I think that parenting should be left to parents, and I think that children are sometimes going to be exposed to images and other things that they shouldn't have to see. I think that the responsibility of convincing others that they shouldn't display objectionable images on their property should be left to parents and other concerned citizens exercising their right to organize, persuade, protest, boycott, embarrass, buy out, move away or otherwise creatively and privately solve differences with property owners.

Now, since you haven't answered my questions, I take it that means that you approve of little children seeing the horrors of war on television sets displayed in public places. And you approve of little tots having nightmares about wolves eating them in houses made of sticks. And you approve of perverted booksellers making a profit by selling stories of rape and extramarital sex to impressionable youngsters.

How do you live with yourself?

J

[tjohnson]

As far as I know, XXX is usually an overstated claim, and I've never seen anything in Europe or the US advertised with four x's. Maybe it's a recent innovation. Just goes to show, if you take your eye off the porn market, even for half an hour, sure as heck they'll do something even worser and more awful.

LOL,good one Wolf!

If you're asking me about other people's children? Pretty sad. My friend Richard started life in a ghetto, leaky roof, freezing cold, rats running around his bed at night. Later went to an orphanage. Fathered children of his own that he abandoned. He's miserable. Chronically unhappy and angry. Had nothing to do with exposure to pornography. I've seen more of it than he has, and frankly Shayne you ought to know that porno is a hokey, stupid shadow of the Real Deal which is intimate sexual behavior in private. Should kids be excluded from adult bedrooms? Sure.

The problem is parenting, not pornography.

W.

Yes, accidentally seeing pornography is not going to scar a child for life but systematic physical and psychological abuse certainly will. Parents need only exercise reasonable caution and talk to their children about it to avoid problems.

[sjw]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."--Aristotle

My main point here is that Ayn Rand's thoughts deserve to be entertained. As in actually thinking about how she might have come to the conclusion she did, taking into account the fact that she was a genius, not an moron. Jonathan is not only incapable of that, he also thinks he's able to infer what I think based on zero evidence. Which is ironic. People like him are worse than the zealots in my book, because he's a worse kind of zealot.

Shayne

[Jonathan]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."--Aristotle

My main point here is that Ayn Rand's thoughts deserve to be entertained.

Great. Entertain Rand's thoughts all you like. I'm more interested in contemplating whether or not her thoughts were philosophically consistent, as well as what consequences are involved in advocating using the force of government to protect people from being offended. So, while you're entertaining Rand's thoughts, while not necessarily accepting them, is it okay that I challenge them? Or are you expecting me to remain silent, or agree that any rationalization that pops into your mind is plausible and not laden with contradictions or double standards?

As in actually thinking about how she might have come to the conclusion she did, taking into account the fact that she was a genius, not an moron.

I think Rand definitely had moments of genius, but she could also be a bit moronic at times. I'm not interested in "entertaining" or inventing reasons which might justify her views on banning offensive images -- such as your notion that they might pose "health hazards," and that they're biologically "life-harming"-- when Rand was very clear in stating that her concern was to "protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome," and that laws should protect "the rights of those who find pornography offensive." Contrary to the speculations that you've been entertaining, such as your claim in post #17 that the issue has "nothing to do with being offended," Rand's views are -- in her own words -- explicitly about the right to not be offended. She wrote about regulating offensive material, not "life-harming health hazards" or other such nonsense.

Is there any chance that you'll be entertaining the idea of how Rand would have objectively defined "pornography," "offensive," or "loathsome," and how she might have identified objective standards by which a government could rightfully ban or regulate only the things that she wanted banned or regulated (which I can only assume would not include her own novels, images of cartoon wolves on children's book covers, or public displays of millions of other non-pornographic things that other people find loathsome and offensive)? In other words, are you planning on entertaining any principles involved in regulating "offensive" material, and contemplating how those principles necessarily apply to much more than just porn?

J

P.S. I have to wonder whether or not Rand would have been in favor of banning public images of fully clothed gays or retarded people, since she thought that the former were immoral and disgusting and that children should not be exposed to the latter. Might a publicly displayed photo of a clothed heterosexual couple romantically kissing be perfectly acceptable, but a similar photo of a gay couple be "offensive" and "loathsome"? I could easily see Rand opposing the right to publicly display the gay photo.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Jonathan

[sjw]

Jonathan, when you learn from a genius the first thing to do when confronting something that seems wrong in what they are saying is to reconcile it with reality, not pounce on it as being wrong. That approach permits you to maximally benefit from their thinking, so you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Regarding the subject, I've already stated that I thought zoning-like laws are the right approach. They'd let you display your porn--if it was permitted in your zone. You wouldn't have to buy property there if you really wanted to show it. You'd always be free to go homestead in the wilderness and put up pictures to your heart's content. So I disagree with Rand too.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

The issue as I see it has nothing to do with being offended. If your stereo is blaring then I can't sleep. So it's an actual health hazard. A similar life-harming argument can be made for pornography, especially when it involves children who might accidentally see it.

What?!

If the neighbor's stereo is being heard in your apartment, they are essentially invading your property. The equivalent would be if they hung an offensive photo on the outside of your window, or walked inside your apartment, hung it on a wall and took measures to ensure you didn't dispose of it.

Noise is a property rights issue. The noise-causer has no right to invade your property in any way.

Wolf's comments on pornography are dead on. It's another property rights issue.

re/ Michael's comment about building on your property that affects my sunset, there was a case in California recently where someone put in solar panels while a neighbor's redwoods were growing. Eventually the redwoods cast shade on the panels and the panel owner invoked a law about not casting shade on panels (!) and forced the redwood owner to trim back their trees. I think that is complete bs. We own the land we have title to and the space above it but not the light that comes through the neighbor's property.

Edited April 8, 2008 by George Donnelly

[georgedonnelly]

I've already stated that I thought zoning-like laws are the right approach. They'd let you display your porn--if it was permitted in your zone. You wouldn't have to buy property there if you really wanted to show it. You'd always be free to go homestead in the wilderness and put up pictures to your heart's content.

Zoning laws are the right approach. They'd let you own property and exercise free speech - if it was permitted in your zone. You wouldn't have to buy property there if you really wanted to live free. You'd always be free to go homestead in the wilderness and live free to your heart's content there.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, when you learn from a genius the first thing to do when confronting something that seems wrong in what they are saying is to reconcile it with reality, not pounce on it as being wrong.

I and many others haven't been able to reconcile the following (to choose one obvious example from Rand):

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments...it serves no practical, material end, but is an end in itself; it serves no purpose other than contemplation... utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art."

Architecture is an art form that "combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality."

Care to give it a shot? How long should I have to continue to try to "reconcile it with reality" before I can "pounce on it as being wrong" and stop assuming that it might be pure genius?

When I hear something that I think is blatantly contradictory or silly, I don't think it's important to concern myself with whether or not the person who said it was a "genius." All that's relevant is exploring the merit of the statement. If Einstein had asserted that wishing really really hard can turn butterflies into into magic dragons, it wouldn't be the "mark of an educated mind" to give the statement any special consideration because of Einstein's reputation as a genius.

Regarding the subject, I've already stated that I thought zoning-like laws are the right approach.They'd let you display your porn--if it was permitted in your zone. You wouldn't have to buy property there if you really wanted to show it. You'd always be free to go homestead in the wilderness and put up pictures to your heart's content. So I disagree with Rand too.

In your post #26 you seemed to be referring to voluntary, capitalistic contracts between a buyer and seller of a property in which a condition of the sale would be that the buyer would not display pornographic images. But in the paragraph above you're talking about zoning-like laws. So, which do you actually support, voluntary agreements between private parties, or zoning laws established by government to protect people from being offended?

J

[sjw]

I and many others haven't been able to reconcile the following (to choose one obvious example from Rand):

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments...it serves no practical, material end, but is an end in itself; it serves no purpose other than contemplation... utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art."

Architecture is an art form that "combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality."

Care to give it a shot? How long should I have to continue to try to "reconcile it with reality" before I can "pounce on it as being wrong" and stop assuming that it might be pure genius?

Not interested in pursuing a tangent. My point stands.

When I hear something that I think is blatantly contradictory or silly, I don't think it's important to concern myself with whether or not the person who said it was a "genius." All that's relevant is exploring the merit of the statement. If Einstein had asserted that wishing really really hard can turn butterflies into into magic dragons, it wouldn't be the "mark of an educated mind" to give the statement any special consideration because of Einstein's reputation as a genius.

I guessed what you typically do, I agree with your description of it here, and I think it's foolish behavior.

In your post #26 you seemed to be referring to voluntary, capitalistic contracts between a buyer and seller of a property in which a condition of the sale would be that the buyer would not display pornographic images. But in the paragraph above you're talking about zoning-like laws. So, which do you actually support, voluntary agreements between private parties, or zoning laws established by government to protect people from being offended?

I of course don't agree with zoning laws. I said "zoning-like", meaning "something that accomplishes roughly what zoning laws are for". What I have in mind is of course contracts, specifically contracts that a whole neighborhood would partake in jointly. (I would also argue that current zoning laws should be grandfathered into such contracts when the time comes).

Shayne