Peikoff’s latest howler


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

Back in the 1970s a rumor was afoot in West Coast circles to the effect that Rand had pressured LP to take some kind of voice lessons in order to mitigate his -- How shall I put this delicately? -- unmanly manner of speaking.

Talk about the pot and the kettle! But this called to mind a great moment when her voice was just right, it's here, zap ahead to 50 minutes in, I'm thinking particularly of when she says "you haven't heard anysing yet".

That was one of the funniest lines she ever did. About the watermelon. I laughed so hard I almost split my gut when she said that. I wasn't the only one. It was a great one-two. Start listening at about 45 in to get a feel for everything going on.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That was one of the funniest lines she ever did. About the watermelon. I laughed so hard I almost split my gut when she said that.

And don't forget the airborne box of Cocopuffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He addresses the same question again this week. I didn't notice anything new, but he does seem to scale back on the crazy talk.

http://www.peikoff.c...not-metaphysic/

What an ass!

So, is the following picture the black swan refutation?

machine%20gun%20Barbie.jpgmachine gun barbie bites the dust!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what would Lenny say about Egalia?

By JENNY SOFFEL, Associated Press – Sun Jun 26, 11:40 am ET STOCKHOLM – At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

Damn, I bet they do not have the death penalty in Sweden for folks who have extremely idiotic ideas!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I bet they do not have the death penalty in Sweden for folks who have extremely idiotic ideas!

Adam

People like that are public heroes ins Sweden.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what would Lenny say about Egalia?

By JENNY SOFFEL, Associated Press – Sun Jun 26, 11:40 am ET STOCKHOLM – At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

Damn, I bet they do not have the death penalty in Sweden for folks who have extremely idiotic ideas!

Adam

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything Egalia does, one can't necessarily think its wrong to aim to avoid forcing traditional gender ideas onto people?

Whilst I think Egalia might be going the opposite way (forcing traditional gender ideas OUT of people), most people DON'T fit the traditional moulds. I mean, lets be honest, most men here are probably more intellectually-minded whilst today's current ideal of masculinity is basically dumb brute jerk jock sports stars.

I'm a man but I wear more makeup than my mother and I hate sports. Am I going against nature?

Gender essentialism is like any other form of essentialism; its intrinsicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, lets be honest, most men here are probably more intellectually-minded whilst today's current ideal of masculinity is basically dumb brute jerk jock sports stars.

Gender essentialism is like any other form of essentialism; its intrinsicism.

Yep, nothing like inaccurate generalizations to advance an argument.

Bill Bradley - Rhodes Scholar - spoke five languages - two world championship basketball titles;

Mike Mussina - In three years at Stanford University, Mussina compiled a 31–16 record with a 3.89 ERA. He made two College World Series appearances and was selected as an All-American. His senior year in 1990 was his best, finishing 14–5 with a 0.99 ERA before being drafted again by the Baltimore Orioles, this time as a first round pick (20th overall). Mussina graduated from Stanford in 1990 with a degree in economics. He was a member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity.

And there are thousands more.

I agree makeup has nothing to do with manhood, nor does skill at sports have anything to do with intelligence.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, nothing like inaccurate generalizations to advance an argument.

Please note the use of the word "ideal."

Popular conceptions of gender aren't abstractions formed in the proper sense (i.e. from ground up empirical evidence). This is why someone can be an actually physically real man without being a "real man" by popular standards.

If all the above-average intelligence were removed from both of the examples you cited (Bradley and Mussina), then by popular standards, neither of them would be popularly considered lesser men for it.

Popular conceptions of gender are Platonism at its worst. Indeed, they're a great example of Rand's position that the worst kinds of intrinsicism and the worst kinds of subjectivism can overlap.

Edited by studiodekadent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my. This one's mostly just a funny question, Peikoff's answer isn't bad in content, it's just that the whole subject is so hysterically funny, meaning, that he would try answering it. I think he got "punked" by this questioner.

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/07/04/i-have-what-might-be-termed-a-size-issue-in-regard-to-my-penis-is-it-immoral-to-allow-it-to-affect-my-confidence-and-motivation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my. This one's mostly just a funny question, Peikoff's answer isn't bad in content, it's just that the whole subject is so hysterically funny, meaning, that he would try answering it. I think he got "punked" by this questioner.

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/07/04/i-have-what-might-be-termed-a-size-issue-in-regard-to-my-penis-is-it-immoral-to-allow-it-to-affect-my-confidence-and-motivation/

ND,

Well, he's earnest. Got to give him that.

Yes, he must have been "punked" - an Objectivist would never ask such a question ... surely? <_<

:D

And did you spot the double entendre: "What is the relevance that your penis size should come up at birthdays, and weddings..."

What? - say again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my. This one's mostly just a funny question, Peikoff's answer isn't bad in content, it's just that the whole subject is so hysterically funny, meaning, that he would try answering it. I think he got "punked" by this questioner.

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/07/04/i-have-what-might-be-termed-a-size-issue-in-regard-to-my-penis-is-it-immoral-to-allow-it-to-affect-my-confidence-and-motivation/

ND,

Well, he's earnest. Got to give him that.

Yes, he must have been "punked" - an Objectivist would never ask such a question ... surely? <_<

:D

And did you spot the double entendre: "What is the relevance that your penis size should come up at birthdays, and weddings..."

What? - say again?

Oh, my also. I have not even checked out LPs answers, I'm sure he did the best he could, as the actress said of the bishop. But you are right 9th, the question itself is so hilarious there can be only one answer:

Yes of course it's immoral! Stop thinking about it and go do something productive, and don't read those evil advertisements on the Internet.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he must have been "punked" - an Objectivist would never ask such a question ... surely?

And he says he’s gotten this question repeatedly. Bizarre.

It reminds me of something, though. I went to an all boys Catholic High School. Not by choice, I assure you. In 9th grade everyone had to take PE, and everyone had to take a communal shower at the end of class. Fucking perverted shit, let me tell you, a couple-three of the brothers (Marists) would take a shortcut through the locker room on their way to their classrooms, timed so that they would have all the young naked boys to look at.

Anyway, first day of class, when it came time for the showers, one of the boys took aside the teacher and was in tears, and whatever back and forth went on, but eventually he joined everyone in the showers, and the poor fellow had a micro penis. Not that I made a policy of checking out my new classmates junk, but you couldn’t help noticing (lukewarm showers, no steam). One inch long, tops, and thick as a French green bean. I never got to be friendly with the guy, but just based on body language and how many friends he had throughout high school, there’s little doubt in my mind that this fucked him up bad, the fact that everyone knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of another micro penis anecdote. I had a particularly manipulative girlfriend who was still “just friends” with an Ex. She claimed that he had a micro penis, therefore he should be nothing to be jealous about. Of course, she used him to play jealousy games. Further, he was particularly good at giving oral sex, leading her to make high demands in that department. I don’t know about you, but I get a crick in the neck from doing that for very long, I like to move on and get the other muscle groups involved. Anyway, she was a real loud mouth about the guy’s condition, and I bet that affected his standing among mutual friends. Maybe Peikoff’s interlocutor has the same situation. Solution: don’t date loud mouth manipulative bitches. And that’s good advice no matter what you’re packing in your pants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of another micro penis anecdote. I had a particularly manipulative girlfriend who was still “just friends” with an Ex. She claimed that he had a micro penis, therefore he should be nothing to be jealous about. Of course, she used him to play jealousy games. Further, he was particularly good at giving oral sex, leading her to make high demands in that department. I don’t know about you, but I get a crick in the neck from doing that for very long, I like to move on and get the other muscle groups involved. Anyway, she was a real loud mouth about the guy’s condition, and I bet that affected his standing among mutual friends. Maybe Peikoff’s interlocutor has the same situation. Solution: don’t date loud mouth manipulative bitches. And that’s good advice no matter what you’re packing in your pants.

For all the joking we do here, collectively TM sorry! always hit the truth mark.

Your catholic-schoolboy story says very many things to me, from things I was told from men I loved. What you've mentioned about Stephen Fry shows that this is something you have thought about; what male adolescence is, who owns it.

Becoming a man is tough enough, without the men in your life interfering with you, or the women in your life manipulating you, or either of them meddling with your sexuality which is yours alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the joking we do here, collectively TM sorry! always hit the truth mark.

What does "TM sorry!" mean? I guess it's the "TM" part that doesn't compute.

Peter messaged me offlist asking if I'd gone to some Catholic school in California that I gather has a bad reputation, which led me to reply including a link to my school's website. From there I found that my philosophy teacher has his own website, what a hoot! I've had the experience, and I consider it a formative one, of hearing "for those who are aware, no explanation is necessary, for those who are not aware, no explanation is possible" related to faith in God, etc. delivered with utter sincerity by a highly educated adult. He was into Teilhard de Chardin's nonsense, leading me to read The Phenomenon of Man the summer after graduating. My first semester of college I had a professor who assigned The Fountainhead, imagine the shock.

BTW he wasn't one of the pervs, at least not that I ever saw. Here's the site:

http://www.anoblemind.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the joking we do here, collectively TM sorry! always hit the truth mark.

What does "TM sorry!" mean? I guess it's the "TM" part that doesn't compute.

Peter messaged me offlist asking if I'd gone to some Catholic school in California that I gather has a bad reputation, which led me to reply including a link to my school's website. From there I found that my philosophy teacher has his own website, what a hoot! I've had the experience, and I consider it a formative one, of hearing "for those who are aware, no explanation is necessary, for those who are not aware, no explanation is possible" related to faith in God, etc. delivered with utter sincerity by a highly educated adult. He was into Teilhard de Chardin's nonsense, leadadianiing me to read The Phenomenon of Man[z/i] the summer after graduating. My first semester of college I had a professor who assigned The Fountainhead, imagine the shock.

BTW he wasn't one of the pervs, at least not that I ever saw. Here's the site:

http://www.anoblemind.com/

TM sorry is just a canadianism, we are reflectively collectively sorry about everthing. Sorry for the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are some professions inherently immoral?

Peikoff: “. . . Then of course there’s the world’s oldest profession; let us say it’s debatable whether it is immoral. . .”

“Prostitution is evil by almost any standard of morality. So long as it isn’t forced on anyone, however—so long as a woman chooses to engage in that kind of activity (one shouldn’t call it a profession) and some men take advantage of it—that is between them and not the business of society. It is their moral degradation. . .”

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 13-14)

I find Peikoff's words to be an encouraging signpost in the movement toward a new, more liberal (not to say licentious) Objectivism. :rolleyes:

It also opens up a promising new career path for those Objectivist women struggling to make ends meet in our dismal economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep...

and it's really good that there is no evidence in society of male prostitution...

Historically, male prostitution has taken many forms, including "escort boys," those who worked in brothels, and even "kept boys," who served more as a companion to a client than a prostitute (Coombs 1974; Drew and Drake 1969; Weisberg 1985). While research on the subject of male prostitutes is still relatively sparse, there have been a few attempts to examine this population. For instance, the now classic study by Reiss (1961) found that most of the boys view prostitution as a job or simply a means of making money. He also found that many boys limit the scope of their activities which allows them to retain a sense of identity and control over their lives.

Other studies have attempted to identify common characteristics and describe the various motivations for becoming involved in prostitution (Weisberg 1985; Butts 1947; Jersild 1956; Ross 1959; Luckenbill 1986a, 1986b, 1985; Lloyd 1983; Campagna and Poffenberger 1988; James 1982; MacNamara 1965; West 1991; Bracey 1989). Most of the recent research has focused on the risks of AIDS and on the runaway population (see Ross, 1988; Elifson, Boles, and Sweat 1993; Calhoun and Pickerill 1988; Morse et al. 1991; Pleak and Meyer-Bahlburg 1990; Borus-Rotheram and Koopman 1991).

Ladies--say hello to Markus, America's first legal male prostitute. Markus is the newest hire at the Shady Lady Ranch brothel in Tonopah Nevada, a business that recently got the go-ahead to hire a few good men. However, as Markus
told Details magazine
, he'd really prefer it if you'd call him a gigolo:

He likens himself to Rosa Parks, wishes to be referred to as a gigolo article Huffington Post here.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep...

and it's really good that there is no evidence in society of male prostitution...

Don't be silly. No one questions the prevalence of male prostitution.

In point of fact, the person who asked Peikoff the question about penis size was undoubtedly a male prostitute.

This would answer Peikoff’s question: "Why is the size of your penis relevant so extensively in your social life?"

Peikoff assumed incorrectly that the problem was that he was embarrassed about being small. On the contrary, his professional “reputation” precedes him (so to speak) everywhere he goes. The poor guy is like the so-called "dumb blonde" whom no one will take seriously. He wants to discuss serious topics like metaphysics and epistemology, but everyone around him just wants to make lewd comments about his big dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sometimes I reminisce about the time when a “tolerationist” like me knew exactly where he stood with respect to orthodox Objectivism. Then came the McCaskey affair, and suddenly things got really muddled. Well, they just keep getting murkier all the time.

Take the Oh So Tolerant Dr. Peikoff’s latest podcast (7-25-2011), for instance.

The jealous, angry questioner demands to know: Isn’t my girlfriend immoral for not refraining from sex with other men before she met a truly great man like me?

Early in his answer, Peikoff says: “If her partners were men that she admired, even if she didn’t love them, there is nothing whatever wrong with that.” But then he throws out this little nugget of wisdom:

“If she was a slut sleeping around or whatever, you don’t need to worry about what to do.”

(Gee, Dr. Peikoff, you say ‘slut’ like it was a bad thing.)

So. Clearly, if she’s promiscuous, then she’s immoral, and that’s that. Right? Right-thinking Objectivists don’t “tolerate” immorality. Right? The dude has to leave her and go find someone less soiled and pure of heart. Yep. That sounds like the Dr. Peikoff we all know and love.

But wait. There’s more. . .

Peikoff: “…Let’s suppose even the worst: that she was promiscuous in the past because of desperation. She didn’t know what to do. If you love her now, if she is of great value to you now, even if she had a past of which you disapprove--if you think that’s all behind her now and she really loves you--then I say you forget the past, throw it out. She is the person that she is now…”

So now Lenient Lenny is saying it’s okay that she’s a slut?

Sigh. I really long for the good old days.

Objectivism is really confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I reminisce about the time when a "tolerationist" like me knew exactly where he stood with respect to orthodox Objectivism. Then came the McCaskey affair, and suddenly things got really muddled. Well, they just keep getting murkier all the time.

Take the Oh So Tolerant Dr. Peikoff's latest podcast (7-25-2011), for instance.

The jealous, angry questioner demands to know: Isn't my girlfriend immoral for not refraining from sex with other men before she met a truly great man like me?

Early in his answer, Peikoff says: "If her partners were men that she admired, even if she didn't love them, there is nothing whatever wrong with that." But then he throws out this little nugget of wisdom:

"If she was a slut sleeping around or whatever, you don't need to worry about what to do."

(Gee, Dr. Peikoff, you say 'slut' like it was a bad thing.)

So. Clearly, if she's promiscuous, then she's immoral, and that's that. Right? Right-thinking Objectivists don't "tolerate" immorality. Right? The dude has to leave her and go find someone less soiled and pure of heart. Yep. That sounds like the Dr. Peikoff we all know and love.

But wait. There's more. . .

Peikoff: "…Let's suppose even the worst: that she was promiscuous in the past because of desperation. She didn't know what to do. If you love her now, if she is of great value to you now, even if she had a past of which you disapprove--if you think that's all behind her now and she really loves you--then I say you forget the past, throw it out. She is the person that she is now…"

So now Lenient Lenny is saying it's okay that she's a slut?

Sigh. I really long for the good old days.

Objectivism is really confusing.

Maybe she liked to get laid.

--Brant

why can't a man be a "slut"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If she was a slut sleeping around or whatever, you don’t need to worry about what to do.”

Great. Lenny the Love Doctor.

All this coming from someone who probably hasn't had their junk working since somewhere in the seventies. Tops. If ever.

When he dies, they should put his penis in a small jelly jar and display it behind bulletproof glass at the AR museum. It won't take up too much space.

rde

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