Xray

I would say that these terms very often reflect a certain consensus among humans about something and that something is to be examined. What is it that makes people think of something as beautiful or ugly? Who for example would have called actress Grace Kelly "ugly"? No one, I bet.

I just listened to the audio of Shelly's 911 call: (I'm not sure if I understood everything, please correct me if I got it wrong): [shelly]: "There is a Lake Mary city worker across the street that I believe saw almost all of it. He's sitting there in shock now." Where did the attack happen that this eyewitness could see it? Outside the house? Quote from the excerpt that has been transcribed: [shelly]: "He’s in his car and he continually has his hand on his gun and he keeps saying 'step closer' and he’s just threatening all of us," She also told her father to come inside the house. But why did the father stay outside if Zimmerman was out there with his hand on his gun, threatening them? Shelly seems to have been standing outside as well, because the 911 operator told her to get inside the house. And what was Zimmerman's bodyguard doing while all this happened? I can't believe he would not have stepped in. For Shelly said the police was outside telling Zimmerman's bodyguard (or bodyguards?) to get out of the way. Who shouted "There's a woman in there? Oh my God!" A policewoman? Or Shelly?

But doesn't the slang use of the technical term "scum" intend precisely that: to dehumanize a person by comparing him/her to worthless matter? 4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.Bingo. Other terms that may fit: dross, waste, residue. "The exceptions prove the rule" may be a useful concept, how would we even define civilized humanity without recognizing the exceptions? And naming them. These names are useful in that they recognize the lost potential of the greatness of humanity that is missing in certain individuals. They also serve (or they were intended to) to shun these individuals, perhaps into seeing the error of their ways and joining the ranks of the law abiding and productive. It is not dehumanizing to recognize people come in all categories, from the sublime to monsters. There is ample evidence on Trayvon's social network records (facebook, twitter) that he had a fascination with drugs, punching people in the face, and guns. There is also evidence he was a thief, covered up by a school principle more interested in hiding evidence of criminal activity at his school than bringing budding criminals to justice. He was not a monster, he was a 17 year old male from a broken home and picked the wrong role models. It is unfortunate that he died, I do think he could have been rehabilitated given the right mentor. Like this guy, Mr. Julius Baker. The problem I have with the use of the term "scum" in the context of the TM case: scum is something one wants to get rid of. That's why I found the comment about TM ("I don't raise scum") disturbing.

Angela: You must do a lot of Yoga in order to bend yourself into uttering this last post. and, Selective distortion does not work, ever. A... Adam, I can't see see any distortion. Rand merely quoted the constitution; she does not say whether this really reflects her own opinion. But imo the idea of private citizens carrying weapons would contradict her philosophy on the issue (see Rand's essay The Nature of Government).

But doesn't the slang use of the technical term "scum" intend precisely that: to dehumanize a person by comparing him/her to worthless matter? scum (skm) n.1. A filmy layer of extraneous or impure matter that forms on or rises to the surface of a liquid or body of water.2. The refuse or dross of molten metals.3. Refuse or worthless matter.4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scum

Huh? Link. Excellent work MJ - these links end Angela's argument and assertion of Ayn's thoughts on the issue. I don't think it puts an end to the argument; for nowhere does it say that Rand's ideal of a rational society implied the notion of private citizens carrying weapons. Rand may have found herself in a dilemma though as she became aware that to many Americans, the right of private citizens to carry a gun is regarded as a high value, and that suggestions to restrict that right would probably get a negative reaction. Rand loved America - it stood for so many things she admired deeply. That's why her answers on the gun control issue in the interview were a bit hesitant and unconfrontional.

In Rand's view, Galt & Co were fighting against a state that was "the enemy", a "rogue state", so to speak, run by evil collectivist rogues. The fight against such evil enemies justified using a gun against them, especially when the life of super-hero Galt was in danger. The dystopian situation in AS is therefore not comparable to what Rand said in essays like "The Nature of Government" where she presented her ideal of a civilized society.

This premise ('Objectivist morality is just and rational') applied to the T. Martin case: wouldn't it have been irrational (and therefore immoral) then by G. Zimmerman to carry a gun at all? For Rand was strictly against private persons carrying weapons, which imo also included any form of armed 'vigilantism'.

Tony, The problematic issue of objective morality had been addressed in this thread long before I took part in the discssion. See the exchange between you and poster Dglgmut : whYNOT, on 29 Jul 2013 - 5:27 PM, said: To which Dglgmut replied in post # 662: As for emotions making a rational discussion difficult: it always depends on what kind of emotion it is. There certainly do exist emotions which can cloud a person's rational judgement.

Moralist wrote in # 723: But can parents really be that certain as to how their kids are going to turn out?

Correction of my #758 post: Moralist wrote in #754: But "scum" is a term that connotes strong emotion on the part of the person who is using it. Isn't the 'other party' trying to do the same vice versa? Could the truth be somewhere in the middle? From all we know, T. Martin was far from being a 'model teenager', but G. Zimmermann, when confronting him, may not have acted as a 'model citizen' either.

No he didn't. --Brant Oops, sorry about my mistake! I'll correct it.

Brant Gaede* wrote in post #754: But "scum" is a term that connotes strong emotion on the part of the person who is using it. Isn't the 'other party' trying to do the same vice versa? Could the truth be somewhere in the middle? From all we know, T. Martin was far from being a 'model teenager', but G. Zimmermann, when confronting him, may not have acted as a 'model citizen' either. [*edited to add: Corrected version of this post (whose quotes from moralist I mistakenly attributed to Brant Gaede) by me in # 761]

LOL. Prove it with citations and page numbers. Here is the proof: A is A. Q.E.D. Okay I'm conviced. For no rational human being will deny that A is non-A!! But kidding aside: crazy as it sounds, I can imagnine that one can indeed run into that kind of argumentation in debates with those Objectivists whose orthodoxy borders on fanatism. So when they present an Objectivist tenet as undisputed fact, those who are trying to examine the assertion are probably accused fo violate the 'A is A' principle ...

Shocking documents about what indoctrination can do to a child's psyche.

Yes, that's what I was taught there. And it was presented to us not as a religious legend, but as it if were a fact. Back then, as a kid, I didn't see the 'empistemological incorrectnes' in this, but believed it was true.

What if this had happened to your kid? Angela: You offer that as a rational argument? You are better than that. A... I merely asked Moralist a question. The answer I got ("I don't raise scum") shows a very emotional reaction. The realistic assessment of debates dealing with this highly controversial topic: strong emotions will weigh in by the participants on both sides, which can make it very difficult to have a rational discussion.

But many laws do reflect the moral principles of a society.

AS aka 'The Toddler's Progress'? ... reminds me of another early bloomer: Jesus as 12-year-old already lecturing in the Temple.

What if this had happened to your kid?

Thanks for the info, Carol.

... cold-bloodedly and deliberately shot by Dagny Taggart because he couldn't make up his mind. I wouldn't want to be Dagny's defense lawyer if this had happened in real life. I probably would urge her not to testify. But back from pure fiction to reality: I know that defense lawyers often advise their clients not to testfiy, but I would have been very interested in Zimmerman's version of what lead to that horrific escalation with such a tragic end. Travyon Martin was killed by a single gunshot in the chest. Couldn't Zimmerman just have pointed the gun at the youth to keep him at bay? Or at least have tried not to shoot him fatally?

Bratn Gaede, on 23 Aug 23 - 8:17 AM, said: I deliberately kept Heinlein's collective noun here because it generates a more drastic picture in the mind.

Jmpo, but John Galt's flaming speech in AS, with its damning indictment of all those who don't have the 'proper' values sounds anything but stoic to me. I read a bit of Marcus Aurelius meditations in my teenage years, and what sticks in my mind was an attitude of forgiveness, of generousness toward the weaknesses of his fellow men. Imo Rand was more a person who attacked these weaknesses. AS is about fighting against those who have the wrong ideology and evil character, and human weakness is not to be forgiven either. Weakness in any way, shape or form is what the AS heroes fight against, it is the flaw that many of their enemies have, another root of all evil, so to speak . Marcus Aurelius fulfilled all his duties as a Roman emperor, like fighting wars to protect the frontier of the Empire, and at night, he often he sat there, in the various camps, writing his meditations ... As for Ayn Rand, who never considered anything she did as her duty, she too sat there at night, driven by a strong fighting spirit, creating Atlas Shrugged, the book which was to become her magnum opus. Both Marcus Aurelius Meditations and Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged are still widely read today. Each opus reflects the author's highest values, but the as for values themselves, imo they differ a lot from each other.

But does the evidence that we daily get from harsh reality support what Heinlein said? And in a 'fully armed' society (which seems to have been Heinlein's ideal), it's not politeness that would prevail, but fear. People would therefore act politely out of fear of being shot. An armed society is a fearful society imo. [edited to correct typo]