John Tate

Any philosophy which shifts the focus from avoiding wants and desires and self to a focus on individual wants and desires and self is actually supporting the opposite of rational thought. This is exemplified by the fact that many actions which would further our own values or survival we intuitively deem to be immoral. These include killing, stealing, etc.

While Rand reaches the proper conclusions regarding what drives our behavior (either emotional (i.e. instinctual) influences or rational (conscious) influences, she nevertheless ultimately erroneously concludes that rationality is the basis for (not a relinquishment of our survival instincts) but rather a means of achieving one's own individual survival. Rational thought, in fact, should be the basis for actions which are contrary to one's survival but which either support humanity as a whole or which support other individual humans. In short. she was at the cliff of understanding and then suddenly jumped off.

Okay, you just completely lost me. Suddenly, I've realized how laden with collectivism this is. Essentially what you propose is that anything an individual does for himself is going to be against what another individual does. Magically, you propose, that whatever an individual does to "support other humans" (who for unknown, unprinted, perhaps censored reasons cannot help themselves).

All you propose is that we shift value from a rational process, and make our choices based on the irrational process of welfare. Suddenly, if someone is hungry, they become a value.

Saying that "Rational thought, in fact, should be the basis for actions which are contrary to one's survival but which either support humanity as a whole or which support other individual humans." Now I see a bigger problem, you say it is rational to destroy yourself for welfare of others.

Let me think about that...

Fuck off.

The grander picture, therefore, of what is valuable, can only be examined in the context of (not our environment or our reality) but in the context of the totality of our circumstance. To say that things have “value” for living creatures in an environment with a potential or certain end is to simply say that they have value now, and only now. Or that they have value so long as the chain of procreation and the continuation of life can be maintained. What's more, within our environment itself value is similarly transient to life

I think what you need to comprehend here is not the inner problem with Objectivism, that yes eventually I will be dead, and everything I value I can no longer after that - and the essential problem determinist thinking. You will not find out how the end will come about, no amount of calculation will give you the cause of my death, nor the cause of the end of mankind. We can get some pretty good guesses, and we are now insured partially against a sudden death by a comet by technology.

There is reason in your logic, but what is value to you? Your concept of value is insane but points to the economic calculation problem. I'm saddened that you missed it. See, along with the problem of not seeing what end to the Universe will come about that I illustrated above, there is the problem of what actually creates a value. Rationality on the human scale creates value, for example, it actually creates it - the human mind is the source of all values. Discussing how valuable things will be to those humans once they are dead is pointless - obviously they will be inert and can't value anything. Value's at that point would cease to exist.

Human life has value because we are humans, in this case, life is what allows us to live and make choices (that result in values like food, which are required to live). A value like food cannot be considered subjective or "illusionary" as you so eloquently put it. I assure you, if you stop valuing food and stop using it, you will go hungry as will anyone, quite objectively. Much like, quite objectively, if you stop valuing human life (say you are suicidal, and you kill yourself) you will fucking die. How hard is that to comprehend?

Values are based on choices, choices are made by humans, so the principle and utmost value in the world is human life and liberty - the ability to make choices. All values stem from the liberty of human beings. What non-existent human beings do with non-existent liberties to a destroyed world where they do not exist is nothing other than a non-question. This is a perfect example of evasion.

I'll explore the boards more, and hope to see both incredibly positive things about applying objectivism to life, as well as questioning the objectivist philosophical approach, and acknowledging that there may be incredible benefits, as well as some deficiencies (nothing is perfect).

How about exploring Miss Rand's actual work? The prospect that the Internet opens to learning is quite promising. Pay $20 a month for Internet, and rent or buy a computer, and you can pretend to be smart by reading a wide range of subjects vomited second-hands by their adherents and strangers you do not know. Instead of being constantly fixated on finding someone on the Internet to argue with, fixate yourself on understanding Objectivism.

If I wrote into a journal of physics with a criticism of its fundamental laws that make sense of our Universe, I'd rather hope I am censored personally. I lust for the great day of censorship if such shit ever saw publication.

I honestly came here to explore Objectivism from my point of view and politely debate some of Ms. Rand's beliefs. Apparently this forum is not all about "people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects" but rather about being on board.

I'd hate to tell my censored Sir but Ms Rand died quite a long time ago. I am terribly afraid that your anxious to desire to debate with her beliefs can not be met. Or do you know this and automatically assume that we are all robots programmed by Ayn Rand? If that is your attitude, and it appears to be so, it is no surprise to me that someone like you is banned. See the principle of individualism, which lives at the roots of Ms Rand's philosophy, is that we are individuals and not the collective brothers of Objectivism you had hoped.

If your premise in coming to contact with an idea like Objectivism is not by actually understanding the idea but understanding debating with its adherents I'd say its best we block chaps like you for the simple sake that it might force you to read some of Rand's works rather than just being a neckbeard and debating about them on the Internet.

Chinese seem to be saving a lot. I'd say the Chinese are in a very different boat and will find a way out of this mess. Any problems they have will be breif.

A person really with that would know how to spell it.

And a person without it would learn not to be rude and to have elemental respect for one who is more senior than he is.

Adam

A) I don't pay attention to age.

B) Elemental respect for seniors? When a child is born in a world not wrecked by those who delivered it to him, that child will be the first to require an elemental respect for seniors.

A person really with that would know how to spell it.

I can't believe you take the stupid picture that seriously.

I live in Australia and this week the bailout was stopped in parliament. I am no great fan of Malcolm Turnbull however I am on much nicer terms with him than anyone else I know. People are upset because they were set to recieve a $950 handout. Some idiots with no knowledge of the parlimentary process and the current balance of power in the houses have already put things on lay-buy for money they might not ever get. The funny fact is if these people realized that Malcolm Turnbull was demanding a compromise for cutting spending and taxes they would realize the man they are angry at would have resulted in them having a lot more than $950 in pocket.

Your problems are merely with Washington, mine are as much with Canberra as they are with the freeloaders who support them. This entire country is a hive of fucking freeloaders. I wish there was more knowledge of austrian school economics and objectivism in Australia.

Americans at least see a moral problem with handouts and a Robin Hood government. That is more than I can say about my own country, a lot more. There is no morality in Australia but utilitarian mob-rule. Australia is communist, its status as a "liazee-faire" economy should be contested. If democractic control of the means of production is communist, Australia is a communist country.

I don't see empirical evidence pointing to anyone being born gay, if there is any, do show me.

You didn't make a decision between women and men. How many lesbian affiars have you had, experimenting? I think I rightly assume none - if you did, the choice was made when you chose to continue them or not. The idea that a man can be born gay, brings to me the image of a hopeless zombie, devioid of consciousness, wondering around looking for penises to suck as an automatic process. How exactly did this evolve exactly? I think anyone who believes sexual preferences are some biologicial trait needs to consider that they are proposing that a genetic trait with no replication qualities spontaneously evolved. Indeed, if I did believe I was born homosexual, I would probably go to church right now and make the claim that I am proof of God!

On top of this consider that Ayn Rand's theory of sex consists of conscious values - and that this claim that sexual preferences are some naturally born tendancy completely repudiate any of Ayn Rand's views of sexuality and replace them with the old slogan that love is blind and sex is impervious to reason. That is exactly what I see being made as a claim here, that love is blind and sex is impervous to reason, and that regardless of choice or reason a man "born gay" will "act gay."

So I present as evidence your own sexual encounters, whatever they may be. Did you think about them? Do you choose who you have sex with? Or is it some random choice you are born with?

As a child I was always drawn to electronics and computers. By the standard proposed, I was born an engineer. I don't remember when my fascination with technology began. It was always there, I always would pull apart electronics and work out how to put them back together in a working state just to know what was inside. I was born an engineer, it is my caste! Sounding absurd? Because so do your gay friends.

I think attention needs to be paid to the fact that Children are individuals, and anything that applies typically to Children isn't much of a rule. There can be exceptions among Children who are brilliant.

Adults used to be impressed with me, especially my father and his friends from work (he is an engineer). My dad taught me Boolean algebra and such things very young as a child. By the time I was eleven I could design a lot of useful logic circuits with that knowledge. If I had the time and the need to do so, I could sit down and hash out my own computer almost from scratch.

I play guitar myself and often play music with this girl who is much younger than I am. She is only fourteen and absolutely brilliant at piano. She won't listen to anything if it isn't baroque/romantic period classical, she hates pop music, and generally she is unlike any other teenager I've known. She can be childish in her own ways but her intellectual maturity surpasses that of most adults I know. She pleases me because I know she is going to be tomorrows prime-mover.

She is who she is for a reason, it is related to her parents but is most certainly unrelated to genetics. I dislike the notion of genetic qualities. Essentially to believe the girl I just talked about is a purely biological event makes a mockery of her own choices and decisions. I think the fact that she had parents who allowed and encouraged her to study music is more likely. The same sort of things would apply to most of the cases talked about in this thread.

Justice, Liberty, and Romance,

John Tate.

I manage to live quite nicely without Romance. I phart in the general direction of Romance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wouldn't the fart signify some kind of problem you have with romance. It seems from that comment that you don't live so nicely without it and your distaste with romance might be because you don't get any romantic attention.

I appreciate the comments, and I think I do need to refocus on some of my terms (metaphysical abstractions) and find something more appropriate. I do mean to expand on this with perhaps another essay, explaining the moral concepts justice should preserve. More than anything I just wanted to write something that clearly points out the prerequisite of romance which I've defined as liberty, the prerequisite of liberty which I've defined as justice. Justice also requires an Objective morality. Something which I should expand on later.

Rather than an extensive ethical theory, or epistemological method of what rationality requires these are the elements that need to exist in society for people to have the ability to achieve the full potential of their rational self.

I should have italicized society, for this isn't the outlay of an entire philosophy but a purely political statement that rests on some things outside of the article. I should also probably change the title a bit to emphasize my purpose of writing. I will have to make some edits.

I have had an interest in sexual ethics for some time – and I have consequentially noticed throughout history found almost a complete vacuum of any sexual ethics at all in a conceptualized fashion that can explicitly explain the issues with sexuality and Children (except what is implied through philosophies of natural rights barring force, for example). I find a lot of people have different views on sexuality outside the realm of consent. Political forces are considering changing the minimum age in different areas (higher or lower) among other things. This generally seems to stir a growing consensus that restrictions on age are simply arbitrary and often along with it that they are not worth considering. That phenomenon might also be attributed to the fact that interaction between older adolescents and younger adolescents is common on the Internet where in the past historically age groups have been separated by school grades – they are becoming integrated outside of that environment and outside of an environment of authority at all.

For years, I have sparked discussion in various Internet communities about the issue of children and sexuality. Most people cannot state a specific reason about child sexuality that makes it wrong. The usual response from people is aversion from discussion of such a grotesque subject, on purely emotional terms without the backing of any solid thought at all. This I believe is a sign of modern cultures lack of intellect and lack of ability to defend itself from growing movements seeking the “Liberation” of pedophiles and/or children. While most people completely ignore the subject and any debate of it out of disgust, growing organized groups try to rationalize that adults having sex with children is fine. Along with this is that growing amounts of adolescent try to rationalize sexual activities with younger and younger partners – probably due to reasons of integration I have established.

Something of which I have noticed over time is that most people have developed no reasoning to bring credit to the facts which surround the issue of sexuality and children. No effort is made I believe to rationally dismiss the crime as sexual abuse because the issue is generally considered to be held wrong by all. This instance of morality by consensus really is nothing more than consensus without rationality. Thus, various movements promoting the “Liberation” of pedophiles regularly target this specific fact surrounding the issue. Everyone is just saying “it is wrong.” Very few people are mentioning why.

Why is it wrong? First I will explain a key principle in Objective morality. These are the rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. The right to pursue self-interest rationally – provided that does not infringe on the rights of others to pursue their own self-interest rationally. Thus, this demands the abolition of force and coercion from human relationships. The rights of a child do indeed bend on the basis that a child is not fully capable of making rational choices, and also that children are in a state of learning and forming convictions based on their surroundings. A child naturally trusts the adults around them, which leaves them open to learn our lessons. This also leaves children extremely impressionable. Thus, there are appropriate impressions that can be made upon children. To ensure a child can live morally, and pursue self-interest rationally it is important a child is taught to be able to rationalize appropriately.

To enter the sphere of sexual morality, sexuality comes with an implicit agreement on the terms which can be derived from the expression of sexuality. Two pointless people will come up with equally pointless terms. More developed and conceptualized people will have very different terms demanding very different levels of commitment in a relationship and the virtues they require. For a child regarding sexuality with another adult: the child will be unable to perceive the level of commitment to a relationship compared to an adult. Essentially a child is far less developed in concepts and choices are conceptual. Love is essentially a marriage between the concept of a relationship and all the virtues one demands within it. To a child, these demands and virtues are not known, and still being discovered. Thus any cry on the basis of love by an adult towards that child is essentially one-way. A child has no concepts to derive terms for a relationship. For any adult targeting children for a relationship, they are essentially going to set all the terms, and norms for the basis of that relationship and form what the child will agree with. Thus, anything goes in the relationship. While children should learn about their bodies, they should do it with their peers on the basis that they will be equally as absent of complex concepts of commitment.

With a child requiring the development of a rational mind, and sexuality between adults and children setting an almost unlimited possibility of norms on a child we can see that clearly sexuality between adults and children will do nothing to develop rational principles on which that child can live life as an adult. This impedes on a child’s right to be treated rationally, and sexuality between adults and children attacks a child’s conceptual faculty’s ability to form rational value-judgments.

I wonder if anyone can guess what this is about, failing let, I might reveal it. I intentionally obscured the real subject of this poem. As much as I generally dislike poems that don't bring the abstractions into concretes I felt for the personal nature of what I was writing about that it would be necessary. I'd not even heard of Objectivism when I wrote of this.

In my life I have had many a struggle.

Like leaves through seasons I've traveled:

from having no reason to having only speed

a green painted forest to a dead yellow leaf.

Me, a quiet and curious puerile green-eyed baby

was purposely poured into a vague obsession,

No pain or fear, just lust oh very uncomely.

Ideas of pleasure yet no sense of discretion.

If ever the captivation of pleasure shed

was with the application of a salient snap.

A fire painting the silent green forest red.

Only age could paint the great fire black.

While that great fire was still a roar.

I committed a sin before I could see

the part of the gospel they don't implore.

Trying to save the others young, from me.

A hypocrisy, heads full of holes of fear

thinking they protect God and the young.

An army of doctors converting pleasure queer,

good memories of mine, gone now none.

Like a bullet in the back while smelling a rose.

Where there was pleasure this guilt would arise.

For my desires were all nonsense, I chose.

Pain from pleasure they dressed in disguise.

Vibrance and energy were detested by my peers.

A blast of glee followed with the unacceptable.

And when I seemed peaceful nobody would fear.

Except behind the peace lied misery inevitable.

I renunciated from all sense, and I would detest:

God in his pleasure kingdom, his angels singing

their songs of hedonism while asceticism they request.

In heaven only joy while on earth pleasure is sinning.

Once I was a boy I would play, there were no barricades.

No duty for a cannonade, the cannons seemed forever away.

Never I thought a cannon should need to stay, for today.

Yet as I grew the builders threw: a barricade in the way.

It was the voice of the shrew, the breaking news of day.

The lack of conceptions around me, replaced with: "Obey."

Forever did it seem that I could no longer play my games.

Yet as I grew more it wasn't just the games I'd play -

it was the life I couldn't live, because life was given away.

Given to the greater good of a life unable to concieve his claim.

The forever potent and great have been today exchanged

in a sea of lies to leave the good as the primary blame.

To demand more sacrafices for the sacrafices they made.

With every single person seeming lost in a mystic daze -

I can't blame those who leave what is great to run away.

For nothing is great if it gives them some time of day.

No amount of creation is worth the new type of exchange:

A value earned, a value given: to give the good away.

No value is valuable when it lands in the hands I name!

It is the beaten and broken that I'm told can claim

the greatness of my life to blunder, abolish, and drain.

The kid's could go out and play, have fun.

The inventors could invent and profit would come.

The children couldn't invent but ideas would run

into a beautiful life where imagination began.

The teachers would teach concrete, so reality won.

And the wishful wouldn't get anywhere, they'd run:

dreaming and screaming, in many tantrums and fits.

Most would learn to be reasonable and just use it.

Teenager's could love, and learn from their mistakes -

for most of them learned for they were well raised.

Yet the children of tantrums took posts of change:

philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and the world changed.

And so the philosophers said love was blind or false,

for love is something men of tantrums couldn't attain.

In their envy they decided to ruin all of those

that didn't hold love and sexuality in places of shame.

So the teachers taught dreams, and the age of love begun.

The future politicians became the parasites of the young.

They'd all throw tantrums wishfully for what they can't win.

And that is the story of how modern socialism had beginnings!

You might have to be a Melbournite to get all of this.

On one evening outside an Aussie pub, four men and a boy stood together. One was an Environmentalist, one was a Libertarian, one was an avid Liberal, one an avid Labor supporter, and a Nihilistic teenager.

“Why does nobody like me?” asked the Nihilistic teenager.

The avid Labor supporter looked at the kid, and made the assessment in his mind that he must only be about fifteen. He said, “Because you are only young - but remember you have your whole life ahead of you!”

The avid Liberal supporter looked at the kid. He noticed the boy had cuts on his arm and thought he must suffer from depression. He tried his best to give the boy some sound advice and said, “Because people like people who are happy – you need to clean those cuts off your arm,” said the avid Liberal supporter.

The Libertarian didn’t look at all, for in all social occasions they are too busy thinking of the greatest rhetoric. “Because the public education system forces you to be with people you don’t like. We need to introduce a voucher system –“ said the Libertarian before he was rudely cut off.

The Labor supporter noticed the same old Libertarian rhetoric, and asked his own hopefully rhetorical question “How would this bloke know to find a school without dickheads when all the schools become a free-for-all mate?”

The Libertarian thought about the obvious problem with calling blame on a free-for-all when the system already is one. Once again however he thought of the same old Libertarian rhetoric and missed his point. “Well his parents would find a school for him – “ said the Libertarian, rudely cut off again.

“I HATE MY PARENTS!” the Nihilistic teenager shouted.

“I thought libertarians believed people were fit to make their own decisions and not need say, family, to help them,” said the avid Liberal supporter.

The Libertarian just looked furious and did a fine job of it, from pale white to tomato-soup red.

“Thanks mate,” said the avid Labor supporter.

The Libertarian looked confused.

“I think the problem is that this child is depressed,” said the Environmentalist.

“Why do you think that mate?” asked the avid Labor supporter. The Libertarian giggled over the illogic.

“Well because the environment is being destroyed for more urbanization,” said the Environmentalist in a slow and casual tone of voice. A tone fit only for HAL in Stanley Kubrick’s A Space Odyssey 2001 or a hippy who had lived in Belgrave too long and been made slower with the thin mountain air.

“That isn’t the fucking problem, you are all so fucking righteous and fucking stupid!” whined the Nihilistic teenager.

“And that is why you don’t have any friends,” said the Libertarian.

The Environmentalist, avid Liberal supporter, and avid Labor supporter all laughed.

The End.

I detect (perhaps in error) in Rand's works a duty to flourish. I consider flourishing a choice once can make or attempt to do, not a moral obligation. One's time, energy and talents are his to use or squander.

You could use the term duty to flourish. However this essentially is duty towards oneself. Ayn Rand dismissed duty towards others/society. You could use duty to ones own self-interest to describe the ethics of rational selfishness. Choosing to squander and live behind your potential certainly isn't rational self-interest even if one is interested in doing it.

The Three Elements of Life on Earth is a metaphysical abstraction I have made to distinguish the three key components of human life on Earth. These are what living rationally and morally require. The components need to be universal in which they can be applied to all, and yet individual in that they encroach upon no single person’s rational goals and happiness. Rather than an extensive ethical theory, or epistemological method of what rationality requires these are the elements that need to exist in society for people to have the ability to achieve the full potential of their rational self.

I will start with a simple premise on the meaning of life and existence. The meaning of life is romance. Not in the simple sense of romance towards others – however in the abstract sense that we should live for our goals and dreams. “Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence. It does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned—in the words of Aristotle—not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be.” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to The Fountainhead) As the meaning of life I take the essence of Ayn Rand’s art. That the meaning of life essentially is to change the state of the world, be it one’s life through the attainment of love, to the lives of thousands through the attainment of a new technological feat – to achieve a romantic ideal on earth.

Essentially romantic goals have requirements and are not mere whims and fantasies, although imagination is the first step of a romantic goal the second step is conceptualization. Conceptualizing a goal is about rationally realizing its possibility and the actions required to make it possible. The fact that action is required to make ones goals possible brings forth the case of liberty. The ability to act on a person’s own selfish interest, independent of others and their interference, is liberty. The ability to act on a person’s own selfish interest in disregard to the rights and interests of others and their own selfish interests is tyranny – which makes romance difficult, if not impossible.

Thus liberty requires first and foremost the recognition of individuals as independent entities. This requires the erasure of the political notions of nationalism and other forms of collectivism. The implication that sayings like: “Ask not what your country can do for you – but what you can do for your country,” (John F Kennedy) are detrimental ideals towards the freedoms of the individual, and imply that the freedoms of the individual are unimportant. Most politicians in the modern world promote themselves by promoting service towards the nation which they claim to be able to direct in the best way possible. This is antithetical to liberty and generally detrimental to the requirement of liberty: justice.

Justice is the only appropriate realm of Government, on the premise that justice preserves liberty from chaos, mob rule, anarchy, and ultimately tyranny. Justice is not only appropriate to the Government, but to everyone. For a Government to function without encroaching on the rights of its people, the people must realize the requirements of justice. Justice being the concern for the treatment of oneself, those close to oneself, even those strangers whose cause you value in a romantic sense. Justice for oneself depends on self-defense from violations of your liberty, and justice for all depends on supporting or actively participating in the defense of others from violations of liberty. Concern for the liberty of oneself or the liberty of others should be objective not subjective. The persons ill-feeling and personal whims are not of importance – “I felt violated,” or “I felt like violating,” prove nothing and are invalid. What matters are the facts, the evidence of liberties being violated. Justice is rational, not emotional.

What knowledge requires is the subject of epistemology. For a comprehensive view of the subject of objective rationality I’d suggest Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

Justice, Liberty, and Romance,

John Tate.

I can be pretty vulgar if someone is incredibly hostile towards homosexuality for religious reasons. I probably shouldn't repeat but take this as a warning and read no further: "You know that nice feeling when you take a shit? That's what buttsex feels like - only buttsex lasts longer." Because I've noticed most people enjoy taking a dump and its an excellent comeback to homophobic people because it insinuates they feel the same physical pleasures of homosexuality.

Only had to use it once in a social arrangement years ago where some nutcase was ranting about how disgusting homosexuals are. I decided to let that one out rather than letting my blood boil silently. It shut the guy right up. I then suggested I should put the saying on a billboard in front of a school which kind of annoyed everyone. Ah, teenage years, I miss them already.

Oh, there's definitely New World Order/Globalist elite folks, that is plain to see if you hunker down and do the work. And they bear watching, just like any douchebag that is money-empowered to that level. The problem is how you want to deal with that reality. I roomied with an over-the-top conspiracy guy for awhile, very, very smart guy... Thing was, I just can't imagine living with that constant mindset. It made him distrustful of people in general, and he would just randomly engage people about related topics, which did make them think, but more importantly, he came off loonier than he really is. I just say there are definite facts, verifiable evidences (Alex Jones' site documents extremely well, for the most part), but you have to do it yourself, if so inclined. Most people knee jerk at the topic en masse, which is a mistake. There are things there, a lot of things, but how far you want to connect the dots is up to you.

Yeah I used to ascribe to these insane New World Order movements myself. I wouldn't dismiss that something is seriously suspicious with how the Bilderberg group operates. A lot of people who think there is some evil plot planned behind closed doors by those groups naturally hate Atlas Shrugged and consider it the Illuminati blueprint for a New World Order. These groups are a strange incantation of the New Left and consider anything private to be sinister. Just ask your old friend what he thinks of Ayn Rand, it is probably along the lines of what I am saying.

Personally, if there is some elite plot that Alex Jones is so brilliant at uncovering why isn't he dead? Seriously, why wouldn't they just poison him and induce a heart attack?

Anyone heard of The Venus Project? It is quite a laugh. Basically a fringe documentary went around saying capitalism, communism, etc, are evil and that the solution is we live in an advanced society where machines shelther, clothe, and feed us, to live a life of leisure. It makes me laugh because hell, open source can hardly work, let alone become our personal serf. The Venus Project loons definition of slavery is that we must produce something in order to survive.

John, I am curious how old you are, and especially, where do you live?

I am bisexual, of "standard" masculinity, and was born in '68. I grew up in the Philly suburbs and live in New York. I came out to school friends and my sisters at 16 and I had one huge problem. No one believed me. I have been out and not out at various jobs. It seems never to have made a difference except once, when I was working as a cook. It turned out my direct boss, a body-builder, was going thru a divorce, and there seem to have been some "issues" if you know what I mean. That was 1991.

But I sincerely can't even remember the last time my sexuality has been an issue. I dated a woman seriously for six years, she knew, it did not matter. I have had two long term male relationships. My family knows about me - and they are conservative Catholics - but I get more guff from my mom about my choice in movies (film noir, screwball comedies and Doctor Who) than I do about my "condition" (MSK) or my atheism.

It simply isn't an issue. At least not with happy people.

The ONLY time sexuality is an issue is with some other "gays." And this is pretty much only if I choose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - like a gay bar in the suburbs or at a democratic political event or an on campus GayLesbianTransBi self-identified victim support group. It is in these incestuously parochial circumstances where you run into the "one of us" syndrome. Otherwise, you can even find plenty of homosexuals who are simply people. Even, yes, very effeminate types!

I can sympathize with your hatred of the identity thing. But truly, this is a syndrome that a grown-up adult can avoid. Just don't hang out in the wrong places.

I'm 21 and just starting to work out what you are pointing to. I live in Melbourne. The frustration is also that it is hard to find other gay men unless it is in places like you talk about. Checking out dating sites and such I generally only seem to find men looking for pointless sexual encounters. Quite frankly if that is what I wanted I'd just see a rent boy. I can afford a rent boy, and hell, prostitution is pretty legal where I live.

All this talk about a condition?

I sincerely believe that just as some people are born tall and others short, some left-handed and some right, it is not only possible to be born with an "inclination" toward homosexuality, it is also possible for a woman's spirit to be born into a man's body and vice versa. I have known such people.

I think the notion that anyone is born gay is ridiculous. I don't think sexuality is some purely biological half of the body while the mind is separate. I'd say my sexuality could be caused by a number of things that have led to my value judgments now as an adult. I consider a choice being involved and that I have chosen this. You have acknowledged that people can try and like it. Having never had an intimate encounter with a woman that was meaningful in any way probably contributed to my choice. An old stereotype exists of the straight man who never works out he is gay. It is just as possible I am a gay man yet to work out I am straight. I would readily accept the label bisexual the day I had sex with a woman I loved. There are girls I love, just like anyone does. I could hold the premise that I was born gay, and tell myself I love the girls meerly as friends. However if chemistry provided it I know I would go all the way.

One day, when he was six years old, his father was sleeping on a hammock in the country. Vicente had been thinking about breasts from watching his mother breast-feed one of his siblings. Then he saw his father sleeping. His rationale was that if you put you mouth on your mother's breast as a baby, what about your father, from where life itself springs? (Most learn the birds and the bees very early in Brazil.) So, while his father was sleeping, he unzipped his father's pants and started fooling around with his penis. His father, coming out of sleep to that kind of pleasure, looked down and saw to his horror that it was his son. There was no discussion. He went and got his revolver and took out after Vicente, who's mother had to hide him to keep him from being shot - literally. Other family members had to take him in because his own father would have nothing to do with him for years after that.

Now how on earth is a six year old going to rationally choose something like what Vicente did?

In the end, after a tortured life of constant doubts and guilt and some brilliant poetry, Vicente died because of his inner conflict about his homosexuality. He was never effeminate. He dressed like a normal hetero man. But he was a woman inside. This manifested itself in his need to seduce mostly married men and he was strictly passive.

That is a weird way to consider someone being born gay. Yes, how exactly does a six year old rationally choose to do something like that? Also, since when is sex an irrational and blind act? When I was about six my father would show me the basics of electronics. One day I built a circuit in childish fantasy that could never work and decided to connect it to the power point using a kettle cord and putting clip leads in the hole. I got an extremely nasty electric shock that could have killed me. By any adult standard that would be the behavior of a delirious or suicidal engineer. However I certainly wasn't born a suicidal engineer. However from the logic applied to your story of a six year old, I was born a suicidal engineer.

In fact once when I was five I was urinating and decided to see what it tastes like. I wasn't born with a piss fetish either, and it tasted disgusting and I certainly don't have one now.

Finally, trying to get the female inside him out onto his body, he started taking hormone injections to increase his butt size and grow female-size breasts. His heart did not withstand the strain and he died of a heart attack while still in his forties.

I met a schizophrenic who thought there was hydraulics inside of him. He cut open his stomach and had to be rushed to hospital. I'd say the woman inside your friend was a similar delusion. Six year old girls don't just naturally hop up and take on their fathers dongs naturally. Saying that the story of this boy fellating his father out of curiosity proves he is homosexual is like saying certain molestation victims want to be molested. The kid probably knew nothing about sexuality and just wondered what a penis tastes like or something. One thing stands out in the story, everyone made a big deal out of his sexuality from then on especially as father and the kid was basically taught he was gay. No wonder he had some screwed up inner conflicts.

Sorry I keep mentioning the competition, but on OO.net, they added a sexual orientation feature to profiles. I like this a lot. It is difficult to find other Gay-Objectivists. Obviously those who do not wish to disclose their sexual orientation do not have to. If everyone was the same, then advertising would not be necessary.

ObjectivismOnline banned me ages ago when I was new to Objectivism and somewhat a moral relativist. I can say first hand however, regardless of how irrational I was being, that the majority of ObjectivismOnline are complete lunatics. I started a debate there about child sexuality and wondered what the objective facts were against children and sexuality (and generally pro-pedophile movements). They banned me considering me a troll, without any appeal or reason (and regardless of the fact I'd withdrawn my silly moral-relativist posts). I'd changed my mind because one person whom I forget by name had made a reasonable claim rather than an overemotional dozen words of utter rubbish like everyone else.

That forum is nothing more than a cult and complete waste of life. It is dickheads like the ones that lurk that forum that give meaning to the term "Randroid." I prefer to call it life of Bryan syndrome. Bryan says think for yourself, and everyone wants him to do it for them. Ayn Rand wants to people to live individually and think for themselves, and most of OO let Ayn Rand's thoughts act for them.

Ironically I eventually got sent a message from the same guy who swayed my silly views that he didn't see a good reason for why I was banned and unbanned me. I still can't access the forum because those idiots have banned my IP block (basically every single person using my ISP cannot access the forum) and are too damn retarded to check their own emails and hear about it.

Back on topic.

I'm also reducing the chances that others like myself will approach me and thus losing the possibility of their friendship/romantic ties.

Close your eyes and imagine a world where every woman you can possibly meet that is interested in you act like complete retards and are unbearable. Homosexuality is off the menu in this imaginary world. You would probably just move on to other things than sex and love right? I know I am.

If you are worried about gay being some kind of issue on OL, you can rest easy. I personally don't know the sexual condition of most of the posters here and it just isn't important unless someone raises a specific issue. In fact, I rarely see it discussed here.

I am certainly not worried. I was never worried with a small soundbyte of Ayn Rand's either that homosexuality is disgusting. It seemed more the case that like me, Rand didn't see what the big deal was about. What people do in their bedrooms is a private affair. I don't care if someone finds homosexuality disgusting. I find teenage couples disgusting, I still don't go around beating them up or asking for statist control of teenagers and their public displays of love. The Objectivist ethics make it pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with who I am.

I can't believe nobody is considering that this video of the flying brick was simply doctored. I bet there weren't any video editing professionals on that "science show." The video is already of terrible quality and it wouldn't be hard to add a square of light that stands out in the video.

Regarding the "paranormal," lots of things are beyond our current level of understanding. There is a reason I don't see physicists trying to unify flying bricks into our existing models and focus on unifying quantum physics instead.

With scientific standards, this flying brick is nonsense until it can be reproduced under lab conditions for peer review. When that happens, let us know.