Cariad

Here is an ethical question raised by the discussions of this topic: Is it more wrong to rape a child than to rape an adult?

Brant has a much better answer than mine.

My answer is whether a person asking that question has a child or whether he is a college ethics professor with no children.

My feelings about a mind that can pose such a question shall be kept extremely private, but trust me Bach boy, you do not want to hear them.

As an aside, it was just announced that Joe Paterno has lung cancer, and I certainly hope he recovers and my best wishes go out to him and his family.

Adam

I did not infer from the question that Cariad thinks child rape is the same as raping an adult. It seemed more a question about degrees of wrongness, the area where ethics meet law.All crimes, are by definition unethical. The penalties for crimes are determined in part by the degree of harm to the victim and the outrage to society. Sex crimes, according to SVU, are especially heinous, and child sex crimes the most heinous of all. The victim can reasonably be expected to suffer the longest aftereffects because they will live the longest. Society instinctively revolts most strongly against these subhuman acts.

Thank you for both understanding the question and for giving a sensible answer rather than dismissing it with a quip or automatically assuming the very worst of a stranger.

Here is an ethical question raised by the discussions of this topic: Is it more wrong to rape a child than to rape an adult?

Brant has a much better answer than mine.

My answer is whether a person asking that question has a child or whether he is a college ethics professor with no children.

My feelings about a mind that can pose such a question shall be kept extremely private, but trust me Bach boy, you do not want to hear them.

As an aside, it was just announced that Joe Paterno has lung cancer, and I certainly hope he recovers and my best wishes go out to him and his family.

Adam

I assume by this answer that you do think it's worse. I'd like to know why.

Regarding your feelings about my mind, I will also assume that your assumption is that by asking this question I am betraying a belief that I don't think that raping children is such a terrible thing. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I do think that raping children is an utterly abhorrent act and could only be done by the most sick and depraved person imaginable. What I want to know is, why is the rapist of an adult any less sick or depraved? Why is the rape of a grown woman very nearly excusable in this society?

I am not afraid of what you think of me, so go ahead, do your worst.

Here is an ethical question raised by the discussions of this topic: Is it more wrong to rape a child than to rape an adult?

During the extensive Q&A period following an informal talk Branden gave in 1996, he told a pertinent story which, he said, since it would shock some in the audience, he swore on his grandchildren's lives was true.

He said he was expressing some sadness to Ayn over Hank's and Francisco's being left without Dagny's favors, and Ayn said, "Oh, I don't think John would mind if she spends an occasional night with them." (She might have said "the boys" instead of "them." I'd need to double check to be sure I have the rest of the exact phrasing. I haven't re-listened to the tape since I first heard it.)

Of course John wouldn't mind. The author would make sure he wouldn't.

--Brant

Foursome, anyone?

I would very much like to know the details for this dictionary, Phil.

Thank you!

I read Galt's radio speech in its entirety in sequence the first time I read Atlas Shrugged lo those many years ago. That was the one and only time I've read the speech all the way through.

I think Atlas Shrugged is better as a novel without it for reasons already stated by others: It bogs down the narrative and doesn't advance the plot.

I honestly believe that if Ayn Rand were born today, and had a modern understanding of sex and gender etc, she'd likely have a huge fetish for dude on dude. This is only a speculation but I believe its psychologically plausible. Sciabarra's Ayn Rand, Homosexuality and Human Liberation includes a chapter on "Male Bonding in the Randian Novel." It certainly raises some not-necessarily-sexual speculation, but there's clearly a level of emotional intimacy involved between, say, Roark and Wynand (Wynand's feelings for Roark were actually described as "Romantic" in Rand's own journals) and Hank and Francisco ("Greatest conquest" indeed, and the scene with Hank ravishing Dagny after learning about Francisco does have a certain "sex by proxy" feel to it). At the very least, these relationships are "Romantic Friendships."

No, she wouldn't. Not if she were a she; that would exclude her. Except for the lack of sex, however, Roark's friendship with Wynand was more intimate than with Dominique. Imagine Wynand as a female tycoon and . . .

--Brant

btw: if Ayn Rand were born today she wouldn't get that up to date info for 15-20 years--and what info would that be?

I disagree that it would exclude her. I believe that if she was a contemporary writer, she would feel more free to project herself into a male character. It is documented that she considered it a compliment when people referred to her as male. I think she'd be quite happy to create a male version of herself, and perhaps actually relieved not to have to create female characters that were anything but props.

Studiodekadent's point that many men have a thing for girl-on-girl is also spot-on. And indeed, many women have a thing for guy-on-guy. Ayn Rand as a contemporary writer would have fit right in with slash culture.

I honestly believe that if Ayn Rand were born today, and had a modern understanding of sex and gender etc, she'd likely have a huge fetish for dude on dude. This is only a speculation but I believe its psychologically plausible. Sciabarra's Ayn Rand, Homosexuality and Human Liberation includes a chapter on "Male Bonding in the Randian Novel." It certainly raises some not-necessarily-sexual speculation, but there's clearly a level of emotional intimacy involved between, say, Roark and Wynand (Wynand's feelings for Roark were actually described as "Romantic" in Rand's own journals) and Hank and Francisco ("Greatest conquest" indeed, and the scene with Hank ravishing Dagny after learning about Francisco does have a certain "sex by proxy" feel to it). At the very least, these relationships are "Romantic Friendships."

I agree with this. If Rand was a contemporary writer, she probably wouldn't bother with female "characters" at all.

She believed that men were supposed to be heroes, and that women were supposed to be submissive to heroes. Therefore, sex between two women wouldn't be appropriate because there would be no man in the equation to worship and submit to, and sex between two men wouldn't be appropriate because it would require one of the men involved to play a submissive/unheroic role.

XRay, come quick! "Bach Cariad" is Welsh for "Darling Boy"! Is that cute or what! And he doesn't want to pay for a new copy- pure McDuck! The treasure hunt continues....

I'm not cheap, just broke. I'm a lousy capitalist, you see. Than also, I hate reading books on a computer screen.

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

http://pulpless.com/0606.html

Jeez... you didn't even say, "Thanks for your interest."

We appreciate your business. Due to the high volume of messages there might be a delay of up to 24 hours before a representative gets back to you. If you'd like a faster response time you may call our enhanced Customer Relations Hotline, but you will have to converse in Hindi. एक अच्छा दिन है.

I guess that's why they call it "the Publishing Art"

It's okay. I'd rather buy a used copy of the actual book from Amazon than have to read it as a PDF anyway.

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

Today I got a contribution solicitation from the World Wildlife Federation in the mail. On one side of it is the following quote, attributed to Ayn Rand.

The difference between animals and humans is that animals change themselves for the environment, but humans change the environment for themselves.

It made me chuckle.

In case anyone is interested, I spoke to a good friend of mine who is a captain for Delta. He told me that the slide is a single-use item much like a car airbag. Far from being "a simple heavy duty piece of plastic or rubber or sheeting that is attached at a couple points up top," it is a self-inflating apparatus deployed via explosive bolts which can damage or even destroy the door mechanism as the door is blown open. It costs approximately $50,000 to replace an emergency slide.

Maybe that's someone who liked the book as a story but didn't pay any attention to the philosophy. Or maybe the Obama sticker is sarcastic!

Here’s a link to Rand’s own comments about people recommending music to her. Sorry you felt “GOB-smacked” Mikelee999.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=96154

I'm glad you posted this, because I was finding all the speculation about whether Rand would or wouldn't like particular songs to be quite amusing.

I do think that "Songs with Objectivist lyrical themes" is an interesting topic. How about "Capitalism" by Oingo Boingo?

There's nothing wrong with Capitalism

There's nothing wrong with free enterprise

Don't try to make me feel guilty

I'm so tired of hearing you cry

There's nothing wrong with making some profit

If you ask me I'll say it's just fine

There's nothing wrong with wanting to live nice

I'm so tired of hearing you whine

About the revolution

Bringin' down the rich

When was the last time you dug a ditch, baby!

If it ain't one thing

Then it's the other

Any cause that crosses your path

Your heart bleeds for anyone's brother

I've got to tell you you're a pain in the ass

You criticize with plenty of vigor

You rationalize everything that you do

With catchy phrases and heavy quotations

And everybody is crazy but you

You're just a middle class, socialist brat

From a suburban family and you never really had to work

And you tell me that we've got to get back

To the struggling masses (whoever they are)

You talk, talk, talk about suffering and pain

Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain

What the hell do you know about suffering and pain...

Ah, that's even better; I was thinking of the whole name, especially "Cariad." I just love the--to me--esthetics of your surname. Put the whole thing together and you've got a home run. For me, my surname doesn't work without the given name. I think it's the opposite for yours. One is empowered by empowering the other. I also see words, especially proper nouns, in color. For instance, I see "Cariad" as white, same as mine, and "Bach" as blue, same as mine. Some of this color seeing has to do with the first letter: "b" for blue and "r" for red. But not always. "M", for instance, is brown as is "n". (I'm referring here only to the first letter in a word, not a letter by itself.) I see "w" as black even though it is the first letter as "white". Etc. I have an implicit working assumption, probably fallacious, that this is common for normal people.

--Brant

funny psycho-epistemology

That's a very interesting take on my name, Brant. I'm not sure I totally understand the colour association thing. Is that a form of synaesthesia? Either way, thanks for the kind welcome and words.

Welcome to Objectivist Living. Always good to see Rush fans.

Kat

Thanks! I love Rush. I rediscovered my sense of life at a Rush concert in 2007. They have a couple of new songs out and are touring this summer. I'm in a bit of a financial pickle at the moment so I haven't gotten any tickets yet, but am hoping to be able to catch a show or two before the tour is done.

That's one hell of a name, Bach.

--Brant

It's a nickname.

Bien venido a OL ;)

Dig around, there's a lot of archived goodies. If I may, what got you re-interested after 20+ years?

~ Shane

It was a discussion in a fan community for the band Rush.

When I was in my early 20s, I was greatly influenced as a fiction writer by The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I am here now 20+ years later because I am re-examining Rand and the influence of her writings on my younger self. Hello everyone!

Whew!... And I was about to write that we shouldn't really worry about the influence of Michael Moore's pseudo-documentaries,...and then I started reading the "hornets' nest" that mention of his name has stirred up on this thread. Hmmm.

Okay, let me try this argument. As clever and manipulative as Michael Moore is, on practically any issue that he has discussed in his films, and as popular as many of his movies are, there is not much evidence that his arguments have any lasting impression on the movie-going public.

Case in point, "Farenheit 911." It came out months before the presidential election of 2004. It was designed to be a devastating attack on George Bush and to ensure his defeat in the upcoming election. The MSM critics loved it. They talked and wrote about it incessantly. They encouraged all their readers/listeners to see the movie! And many people did. Moore was lauded by the entertainment media and even awarded an Academy Award for this dreck....

And the effect, after all this popularity and publicity? ZERO. At least, zero in the thing that Moore and his media fans most wanted: George Bush's defeat. And I doubt that "Sicko" has had much effect on the current health care debate.

So he comes out again with another film that directly attacks capitalism (or his caricature of capitalism). Does this surprise anyone? Will the MSM laud it? Probably. Will it convert Americans to socialism? Very unlikely.

Moore is a fly, buzzing around the room. Irritating, but not lethal. Better worry about the proverbial "800 lb gorilla" in the room.

Small correction here: Fahrenheit 9/11 did NOT win an Oscar. Michael Moore's Oscar was for Bowling For Columbine.