Michelle

Heh. You know, if I was a lesbian, I know exactly the reaction I'd have to being allowed a "civil union": "Oh boy, my very own drinking fountain!" Personally, though, I'd rather avoid marriage. I don't like the idea of legally binding myself to another person, male or female.

Ted, it is worth mentioning that my positions on three issues - homosexuality/gay marriage; transsexualism; and abortion - have effectively alienated me from both right-wingers and progressives, because I fully support gay marriage initiatives (although I don't go out of my way to support them - I can't do everything, after all), rights for transsexuals (which is an issue entirely different than transgenderism; one is either a neurological disorder (brain-sex theory) or a psychological disorder (Autogynephilia theory, popularized by Blanchard), the other a sociological phenomenon), but am disturbed by abortion, which seems dangerously close to legalized murder to me. I'm more open to discussion on gay marriage and abortion, however, since I have not studied these subjects very extensively. One overriding passion in my life, however, has been the issue of transsexuals, gender dysphoria, and how these people are treated. And my central contention concerning transsexuals, that they be allowed the same social rights and privileges as cissexuals, has been my greatest source of conflict with people. Because it is one of the few things I KNOW I am right on and to encounter mockery at every turn for my support of them only makes me push harder. That people instantly think of Jerry Springer, she-male pornography, and other trash media when the subjects of SRS or hormone therapy/electrolysis/whatever arise doesn't help.

Well, it is an issue of individual rights on two levels: 1) The right of the fetus to life 2) The 'right' (moral right, primarily) of the mother to self-determination and privacy It is a complicated issue, but I think that my proposed solution would address both of these issues. It would give the mother a chance to abort if she really didn't want the child, but it would also prevent abortionists from murdering a fully-formed child during a later term.

Okay, this is getting scary. Michelle, you and I seem to agree on everything except, perhaps, gay "marriage" and assuming you see the superiority of my proposal of adult adoption to gay marriage then.... I'm still contemplating how I should respond to that thread. My major concern is gay couples being denied benefits heterosexual married couples have access to: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E...BA/118/304/ART/ Really, is it right to now allow a homosexual to visit his/her partner in an intensive care unit because they're unable to get married to receive these benefits? And as has been said, although the roots of marriage are found in the married couple's ability to care for a child, this is really a peripheral issue in modern-day society. The modern conception of marriage seems to be aimed at promoting social stability. The modern root of marriage is found in romantic love. Unless you're going to force married couples to sign a legal document telling them that they must conceive a child, I don't see how you can refuse to extend marriage benefits to homosexual couples. If the issue of conception is the catch, then this has to extend equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. Also, you said that it can be a priori deduced that heterosexual couples would make better parents for a child than homosexual couples, from what I remember. How exactly can a complex psychological/sociological question be answered a priori? Most of the research I've read on this issue has concluded that the matter of the child's healthy psychological growth depends upon the amount and manner of attention he receives in the household.

That shape is called the Koch curve. My friend Bryan Gorman and I discovered it independently at the age of 13 when trying to find a way to make more detailed maps starting from a rough large-scale map. The Koch curve is infinitely long but bounds a finite area. The method he describes is the same method I have always used for my non-fiction writing. Rand espouses the same method. Interesting. I was wondering how it would look in practical application in, say, a short story. It is fundamentally good advice. It does sound very similar to the almost mathematical construction of her novels.

If we're in no significant danger because of it, then any question of economic controls because of it becomes immoral.

For those people who have no idea what this is, read this. It's pretty famous online, though, as far as I know.

Peikoff's view on it seems mindlessly liberal to me. A person is no less human just because of her spacial relationship with the mother. As to a solution for it, isn't there a point where it can stop being consider a shapeless mass of tissue and nerves and start being considered human? If this is so, wouldn't the ideal policy be to allow abortion up until this point? And how many weeks, in general, would you say it takes a normally developing child to develop to this point? If a potential mother can't make up her goddamned mind about whether or not she wants the kid until it is fully formed in the fetus, she should just suck it up and deal with the consequences of her actions. This is one area where I am REALLY, REALLY opposed to most feminists, who seem to think even partial-birth abortions are moral.

Michelle, Intellectually and scientifically it is not a political issue. But in politics is most certainly is. (I was once surprised to learn this myself.) There is a truck-load of laws and enforcers waiting in the wings and organizing. The sad part is that you cannot really discuss this in public. People start yelling, dumping loads of statistics at you and demanding complete adherence to their side and demonization of the opposite. I once tried it on OL here: Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle I had a visceral reaction against the propaganda-like demonizing tone in The Great Global Warming Swindle (as I do against all blatant propaganda efforts) and basically said so. But I thought the ideas in the film and the challenge to Gore's theory needed to be discussed. At that time I sincerely wanted to know something about the issue since I knew slightly more than nothing. Boy, was I sorry I even mentioned it. Then I smelled government money at the root and said so. All hell broke loose. From what I have witnessed of this debate (and not just on OL), I don't want either side to get power. Ever. Michael Michael, I know what you mean. It seems like any rational discussion of this is sandwiched in-between the insane rantings of two opposite and opposing political 'sides' who are so obsessed with the political implications of global warming that they'll destroy anything in their way to get what they want, regardless of the facts. What I meant was that I am a believer in an objective reality that operates independent of how we perceive it. This global warming thing supposedly does exist, as people on both sides affirm. You get warming and cooling cycles. The question is "how will it affect us on Earth?" and "Can we do anything about it?" You'd think a question that concerned the FATE OF THE HUMAN RACE would be something people would want to answer scientifically and objectively, apart from political bias. It is a serious question which needs to be addressed, and it disgusts me that these people are concerned about power relations based on the results. Unfortunately, contradictions don't exist. This thing either will or will not become a problem. And the result could very well impact global socio-economic measures.

Catchy quote! Critical respectfulness (as opposed to uncritical respectfulness, as many Objectivists have for, say, Leonard Peikoff), the golden mean between the deficiency of complete disrespect and the excess of fanatical devotion. That's how I'd apply Aristotelian ethical logic to this.

I agree with the sentiment about the everyday concerns about not littering or not wasting electricity and water bills (economizing). But then people with those everyday concerns should be careful to identify and call themselves "environmentalists." "Environmentalism" has a certain core set of principles that may only align with those everyday concerns at the most superficial, tangential level. I don't think hatred of industrial society and wanting to preserve the Earth necessarily go hand-in-hand. It is possible for humans to thrive AND to protect the environment. In particular, I really think businesses will begin to see the value and efficiency of green technology once it is utilized more efficiently.

And finally, I'll say this: I don't get the Randian aversion to appreciating natural beauty. There was a scene in ATLAS SHRUGGED where Dagny said that she hates people who don't want to see billboards in the countryside. Fine for her, but I don't agree. Sometimes it is nice to drive out into the country and not have to see some gaudy advertisement during the trip. Does this mean I'm a civilization-hating nutjob who wants to destroy industrial society and return to the trees? No. But on occasion it is nice to get away from people and from civilization and enjoy the serenity of a natural setting. Of course, I don't think a person can hate natural settings and live in Tennessee. The state is 90% trees.

As to environmentalism in general, as long as it sticks with common-sense community initiatives and individual choices that supposedly help the environment (using energy efficient bulbs, recycling, etc.), I see no problem with it. Best not to paint everybody with the same brush. Not every environmentalist is a member of Earth First.

This is NOT primarily a political issue. There's only three questions: 1) Is global warming a threat to human civilization? 2) If it is, is our contribution significant enough that decreasing it dramatically will increase our chances of future survival proportionally? 3) If it is so, then how shall we deal with it? The importance of them is decreasing in order. I never cared enough to really study into it much (I watched An Inconvenient Truth, and didn't really see anything offensive about it, but, like I said, I haven't been doing any research about this), but this needs to be addressed in a rational manner. What's the point of comparing environmentalists to communists? If the science isn't valid, just invalidate the science. This 'guilt by association' tactic is silly.

Appreciating the sacrifices people in the military make is fine, but don't revere the military too much. Being an anti-war nut is no good, but neither is being an uncritical militarist who thinks that we can do no wrong overseas.

God, would someone really go to this much effort to protect the reputation of Perigo? I mean, why? What's the point? What's really at stake? Not his credibility. If he were credible, they would not have to lie to protect him. In fact, if he was credible, he could probably just protect himself.

Michelle, This is absolutely the only way to do it harmoniously. You will discover over time if you post much on forums that it is also the most difficult. When the rubber meets the road, people simply refuse to agree on terms for some reason. I think they like to yell at each other and/or pretend they are better than each other... At least this is a fair assumption from observing such behavior over several years. Michael Hee hee. I believe it. The number of keyboard warriors out there is absolutely astonishing. And most of them are completely unreasonable. Although I've not met anyone here so far who I'd call 'completely unreasonable.' Which is a surprise to me, because all forums seem to have at least one or two people like that Of course, maybe there ARE unreasonable people here and I don't notice. You see, I have a bad habit. I have a kind of morbid fascination with extreme political groups, so I've spent entirely too much time reading forums like revolutionary left, stormfront, free republic, and democratic underground, where almost all of the posters are completely insane. In comparison to the most sober poster on one of these forums, the most unreasoning person here is a model of rationality.

Yes Michelle, but it would be done profitably and efficiently! :super: Damn, I am sooo glad I missed these internecine wars! Adam I'm trying to remember that Dr. Seuss book where the two sides were fighting over some absolutely ludicrous thing, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was called. We can go with the Frank Gorshen Star Trek with the half black half white face! Also, I have started to plausibly deny that O'Bama is the first black President on two grounds. [No Gulch not on that one! B) ] First, the progressives have argued that Jefferson was "black". Second, I point our that he is only half black and half white and that is how I consistently refer to him and it infuriates some marxists! They are so thin skinned the poor babies. Adam How was Jefferson black? Well, debating about 'race' is a lost cause, since 'race' doesn't exist, merely certain physiological differences and the skin color. He is, I believe, the first visibly dark president, however. Who cares, though, besides the socialists? I don't care if he's green and has an antennae coming out of his head. Our first black president? Sure. Now let's forget that and focus on policy.

Michelle R, The Sneetches. It was one of my daughter's favorites, when she was around 4. "Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches Had bellies with stars. The Plain-Belly Sneetches Had none upon thars." Robert C Thanks. I'd forgotten about The Sneetches. Thinking about it, though, I know what I was remembering now: The Butter Battle Book, where the Yooks eat their bread with the butter-side up, the Zooks eat their bread with the butter-side down, and this becomes the basis for a massive arms race where the two sides are ready to annihilate each other by the end. Obvious Cold War allegory, but I think it also applies to group in-fighting. Some minor differences arise between members of a group, and this leads to an increasingly vicious war where the two sides attempt to ruin the other. This reminds me of why I admire Theodor Geisel so much. He was able to take complex subjects such as war, racism, group inclusiveness, the arms race, environmental destruction-- and create allegorical stories out of them so focused on essentials that even small children could understand them.

Yes Michelle, but it would be done profitably and efficiently! :super: Damn, I am sooo glad I missed these internecine wars! Adam I'm trying to remember that Dr. Seuss book where the two sides were fighting over some absolutely ludicrous thing, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

I suppose the best method for argumentation is to insist on defining terms in an orderly fashion first, and have all members of the debate agree to these definitions. Otherwise, you get the confusion this whole objective/subjective thing has generated.

For a moment I thought I was reading about... Hmmmmmmmm... Nah... Michael Good. The CoS is a criminal organization. Not like banning a few accounts will do anything, but it is nice to see Wikipedia taking a stand against the Church's bullying.

If someone did turn Galt's Gulch into a reality, it would tear itself apart with all of the bickering and in-fighting going on.

This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion. It just devolves into semantics without proper philosophical context. So: I'm out.

Fictional characters always come as a complete baggage. So we have Dagny Taggart who is a "fiercely independent woman" but also a sexual masochist. And the male heros have a sadistic streak. Like you correctly observed in a prior post, it is logical to assume that the heros and heroine in the novel reflect the author's sexual preferences. Nabokov for example did the same in Lolita. But unlike Rand, he did not present his character Humbert Humbert as a role model to emulate. Thanks for clarifyng, Michelle. In what respect is your own view different? Again, I ask: what is morally wrong about rough sex? Are you really justified in calling Nabokov a pedophile? I've not looked at his personal life, but you can't judge his person by one of his writings. All of Rand's fiction clearly demonstrate a taste for rough sex, but on the pedophilia front, there is only Lolita for Nabokov, right? I wouldn't say that morality is objective. I firmly believe morality is SUBJECTIVE, but that experimentation and falsification can lead one to models of moral behavior which give one good results for the type of life one wants to live. A person who wants to live a joyous, rational life will obey a different code of values than someone who does not want to live, but only to make others miserable. I don't know that ideas of morality should apply to the latter category of people, however, since they're unreasonable. I make an enormous presumption, but one that I believe is justified: my morality would work for people who want to be happy and rational. There can be no appeal to the irrational. Nothing will change their most basic premises.