Marcus

Brant, altruism is not a secondary value. It is a non-value. In Objectivism, Altruism means "sacrifice" of your values for the sake of another. Only a "self" can properly value anything. The self is the first and only consideration. All values proceed from your own selfish interests, including helping others, even if you merely derive selfish pleasure from doing so. I believe the word you need here is benevolence (not altruism).

You are guilty as charged. The offense? Stupidity. Lack of comprehension. Your arguments are as dull as a mis-used butterknife. Or perhaps a granny's old, polished off dildo. Mark "The Tribesman" Hunter somehow believes that I said or implied that America is a "color-blind utopia" of which I did neither. Seeing that is as easy as going back and re-reading my earlier comment. If you can manage that then come back with a real argument. Not a strawman. This a forum discussion. I tolerate you, that does not mean I don't challenge any of your nonsense.

^ Mark, give it a rest. We get it. We get your MO. We really do. The world is already divided by racial and tribal lines. This is the been rule not the exception of humanity, since time immemorial. America is the first country to break this "rule" and raise human aspirations out of tribal warfare into a civil, tolerant, prosperous, pro individualist society. Or at least into the closet thing so far. We will never be Iceland (99% white) or Nazi Germany. If you want that move there. Immigration is happening from all over the world and it's going to continue to happen. Deal with it.

Mark, lets just agree to disagree. You have nothing really substantive to argue. You haven't really addressed my points above, only danced around them and moved the goalpost. Followed by whining. Your argument is all over Stormfront and other related sites. Nothing new. Iceland is calling.

Mark, now you're starting to go in circles with your whining tone. We already know you don't like non-whites (because of how they look?). We already know know you think developing countries are stuck in time because you don't favor their demographics. Lets move on. And without all the whining. Mark, no one is getting desperate. I call things as I see them. Your basic argument is collectivist ("Whites are somehow in danger! Our group is losing numbers as a percentage of the population! Immigrants are the culprit!). Realize it. Accept it. Who is "people" exactly? People who read VDARE.com? I wasn't mocking the "atrocity" (that you never named), but you make it seem as if it was morally equivalent to the holocaust, with equal outrage. And again your anti- (insert minority) schtick shows itself because you seem to elevate this criminal act in seriousness above the others (many might be worse) that go on everyday and without your knowledge (often by whites!). Mark I showed you direct FBI statistics of the 6 million recorded instances of crime by whites in 2011 and you go on and move the goalpost to a new criminal act that you say only minorities cause. Lol. I repeat, merely moving to a new place (peacefully) and minding your own business, being self-sufficient, does not "destroy" anything. Only your collectivist notions of what that place was. If you want to live in an all-white country/community, I suggest you buy a one-way ticket to Iceland, where you won't be "bothered" by people who "look different" from you. America is, was and will always be a country of immigrants. Deal with it or move to Iceland.

First, I am not mad, but I will challenge racism where I see it. Mark, you and Neil Pareil can believe in tooth fairies, nazism or anything else you fancy. And I can call you on it. Second, No Mark's point was that somehow, by criticizing Arabs and Native Americans as a group, she was a making a "collectivist" argument, thus giving Mark's tribal schtick sanction. When taken in context, it's not true.

What *causes* a "preference"? Or in your case, are primitive impulses like racism to be taken simply as a irreducible primary? Something like: My feelings made me do it, therefore, it is right and good. Merely having a preference doesn’t mean you think the non-preferred is immoral, stupid, or any other objectively negative thing. It’s just your personal preference. You have a natural right (since 1964 violated by federal law) to discriminate and associate as you please. The reason you have that right is that exercising it can be good for you. Many Objectivists have lost sight of this simple truth. We can evaluate men on the basis of their individual character and other attributes and still prefer not to deal with them in various situations because we don’t like their looks or whatever. Does refusing to deal with someone initiate force against them? Only a leftist would say it does. You have lost sight of simple logic. You don't seem to get that "preferences" derive from prior conclusions about certain "races" of people. Your talk of the "statistical averages of races" only re-enforces my point. Would you really deny someone their just due just because you don't "like" the way they look? Really? This is not a question of "force" this is a question of stupidity. In colonial times all the angst about race was unnecessary. It is unnecessary in a country where whites don’t feel guilty about being over 90% of the population and on average better off than the rest simply because they are on average better in a number of positive attributes. This was the case in America as recently as the 1960s, before cultural leftist ideology took over and before the Hart-Celler Immigration Act brought 90% down to 70% and counting. First why should they feel guilty about simply existing? And furthermore so what if whites are "only" 70% of the population? Your reasoning is just bizarre. It's bizarre because it's not reasoning at all, it's coming from a basic collectivist premise. Marcus, you claim that racism corrupts justice. Tell that to the Rodney King jury not me. You claim racism is an enemy of peace? Even as I write this – I was about to describe the latest stomach-turning atrocity in the city I happen to be visiting, but what’s the point speaking to the deaf. God damn your “peace”. Violent crime happens all over the world in every society, everywhere. It's a fact of life Why amplify this "atrocity" over the others just because a person of a certain race is perpetrating it? In fact, in quite a few "minority" (as you call them) societies, the rate of violent crime is almost negligible. Read up on it. http://www.peacefulsocieties.org Would you "damn" these peaceful societies just because they don't look like you? Stranger violent crime – violent crime committed by someone the victim doesn’t know, the kind of crime you worry about – is almost always committed by minorities. If a white is the victim, the perpetrator is almost always non-white. Frequently, as in “the knockout game,” the perpetrators are Racist in the bad sense of the word. Talk about “clubbing someone over the head”! Yet Binswanger and his fellow brain-dead official Objectivists would solve the problem by opening the borders completely, allowing in yet more La Raza. Wrong. There were over 6 million recorded criminal offenses by whites in 2011. How's that for utility of statistics. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43 About the utility of statistics: sometimes it’s reasonable to consider averages or groups instead of individuals. A cab driver avoids – at any rate wants to avoid – fares going to or coming from high crime neighborhoods. Speaking of mass immigration from the Third World, consider any positive attribute such as health, appreciation of capitalism (not just the wealth it provides), intelligence, etc. If the average of that attribute among Guatemalans is inferior to its average among Americans, and America lets in millions of Guatemalans, the American average drops. It’s simple arithmatic and common sense. Again the collectivist premise. This time you're using statistics to make your tribal arguments. Guatemalans moving to America do not "take" anything away from anyone in a fully free society. While I disagree with Binswanger (for difference reasons, one being overpopulation), I think immigration should be mostly free, if controlled for certain elements like criminals, terror suspects etc. Maybe institute a yearly quota of 1 million people. How much can you ignore and evade in the name of tribalism?

It's true because it's a primitive impulse (dating back to hunter gatherer/cave times). Sexual desire and aggression is also kind of a male impulse, that does not make rape moral or acceptable. You are confusing what "is" with what "should". A similar error Niccolo Machiavelli made. And re-segregating the military is the logical conclusion of such a view. If it is proven that we "prefer" members of our own race (however you define or look at it), why not accommodate that in the armed forces? Why "force" blacks to serve with whites, cambodians, indians etc? Why not apply it to the rest of society while were at it? Segregate the grocery stores, gyms, schools etc,. It's our preference right? Rand said rather critical things at times about Native Americans and Arabs (as groups) for example. You can distinguish groups that share similar values and beliefs and hence, criticize them. That does not mean she hated them but did want to make a point. There have been studies showing that the more diverse a country becomes, the last charitable and civic minded its citizens are. They are more charitable because they are more tribal as long as everyone looks like them. But charity and altruism are not the standard of the good in Objectivism. Here is a letter on VDARE today. Sorry but I can't take "VDARE.com" seriously. They have an obvious agenda. You may as well quote stormfront or david duke.

This is categorically not the Objectivist stance. Men are evaluated on the basis of character and individual attributes, not race. And it is case by case by the person. Even family members are to be judged accordingly. Racism is a primitive impulse, about as "natural" as clubbing someone over the head. Extending your logic, since racial exclusion is "natural" should we also then re-segregate the military and create different units for every race of servicemen in the armed forces? At how many "races" would we stop at 10? 100? One for Malaysians, Chinese, Italians, African Americans and so on? Nonsense. Racism not only divides a country (unnecessarily and inefficiently), it corrupts justice and creates an environment of distrust and hate. It is literally diametrically opposed to peace and trade.

Well not quite. Technically, the philosophy which Objectivism is more or less based on (Aristotelianism) was worked out by a man.

Here is a better article that goes into much more detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/this-is-your-brain-on-magic/385468/ A guy has devised an experiement that gets people to choose the card of his card a whopping 98% of the time? They didn't choose a card. They were asked to "choose" one of the cards that they saw as the magician flicks the deck for a fraction of a second. The trick is that he exposes only one of the cards long enough to be seen. It's a card that he has chosen ahead of time. They name the only card that they saw. The two percent of people for whom the trick didn't work were accidentally shown another card due to the magician's error when flicking the deck. All that the "experiment" shows is that the magician can't perform the trick to perfection 100% of the time. J He didn't expose one long enough to be seen, you can see other cards in the deck, he merely showed his chosen card the longest. In magic, it's called forcing and there are two forms: physical and psychological. This same experiment was done using computers for flashes of a few seconds and it got a 30% result (for the chosen cards), which while not 98% does clearly show free will can be influenced.

I came across an interesting study today: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jay-olson-mcgill-psychiatry-student-can-influence-your-every-move-1.2952085 A guy has devised an experiement that gets people to choose the card of his card a whopping 98% of the time? What does this say about free will and how does Objectivism respond to these findings? Thoughts?

Aka Platonism?

According to Rand, businessmen deserve the highest praise and accolades a society can bestow (which, in a sense means higher than that received by a list actors, star athletes etc), for their incomparable productivity and incalculable contribution to the wellbeing and and living standards of men in any given society. But this is just not what I see in American society at all. In fact, just the opposite. The recieve the highest scorn, the most shackles and and the most open contempt. They are associated and blamed with everything wrong about America. They are guilty before proven innocent. It's just a bizarre spectacle to see two clearly rich individuals treated so starkly different given the same situation. According to the public the rapper "deserves" his millions, while the CEO doesn't.

Interesting and I see what you mean. Upon thinking about it I might offer another explanation.Businessmen are more burdened with altruistic notions of the "public good" and "social justice" than are artists, due to the public's perceptions of the responsibilities of each. One is perceived as liberal, the other conservative. So businessmen have to be "reigned in" on their behavior because they "owe" society for their transgressions. Artists have the opposite, they have "free reign". They are for and by the public and its causes. Businessmen are "greedy" individualist misers and robbers, artists are starving strugglers who struggle for a righteous (public) cause, whatever the cause of the moment. IMO the real power in American society lies not in Washington, but Hollywood. Maybe this is making me sound a bit like Gail Wynand.

I posted the article as an example of the public criticism businessmen recieve for spending (their own money) and living lavishly. It was a blatant example almost taken word for word from my post.My point is, the public perceives artists as "freer" than businessmen. Businessmen, even in their personal lives, are slaves to public opinion, artists for the most part, are not. They have free reign. I find that an interesting quirk of our culture.

You don't have to look far for examples (and almost word for word!): http://valleywag.gawker.com/apple-design-boss-jon-ive-gets-chauffeured-to-work-in-a-1686287300

Apparently in our culture, artists are given a great deal more sanction by the public to be egregriously and unapologetically selfish and egoistic than are businessmen who would be publicly skewered and shamed for taking the same actions. There would even be calls for resignation and boycotts. Can you imagine a prominent businessman chauffeured into work in a Bentley, wearing a flamboyant suit, diamond luxury watch and gold chain while being escorted out of his luxury vehicle by two buxom, beautiful women? A rapper doing this wouldn't bat an eye, but it'd make front page news and be called a scandal if it were Mark Zuckerberg. This may seem like a silly example, but it illustrates the stark difference in treatment two different types of rich people receive. One is given the full go-ahead sanction, the other is pilloried. Artists, musicians (especially rappers), but also actors, comedians, and other entertainers are allowed to say and do virtually whatever they want with very little public repercussion or people will just look the other way and excuse them. In fact, the end result of their so called controversies, is usually just getting more attention and fame. My question is, why does the public even make this silly distinction? And what does it say about their premises/motivations?

Yep. I'd say you're unqualified to be married. You're probably right. Fair enough. Sorry and my mistake. You gave an insult by implication. You said I was not "worth trolling" like you are somehow above me. You called me "effete" and "clueless" with not basis whatsoever and no provocation. Then you nit and pick at my arguments. I think that qualifies you, honestly, as a troll.

Yeah, a wife and a prostitute are not exactly the same thing. However, this does not take away the fact that there are financial transactions in both wife/husband and prostitute/johns relationships and it's usually from man to woman. This "gender skew" of wealth transfer leads me to believe there are underlying biological/evolutionary reasons for this. Why are prostitutes mostly women? Why are johns mostly men (gay and straight)? Why are there no "male" mistresses? You say marriage means a life partner (assuming this means "lifelong" partner), but you are no longer married? I don't want to know why your not married (not my business) so much as why you didn't follow your own principle/belief? Actually, no, there are no rules in marriage that would qualify as a "financial transaction... from man to woman" at least not any that are required. Not in the US in present day, anyway. If a man buys a woman an engagement ring, that is his choice. If he doesn't want to buy an engagement ring, he need not do so. It is not a requirement of marriage. If his intended demands it or demands a style and size of ring that is outside of his financial ability to provide regardless of his desire to do so, then he is free to go find some other intended. Financial transactions executed within a marriage are joint ventures that rightly ought to be agreed upon by both spouses. I don't have any statistics, but I would guess that more prostitutes are women because the demand for female prostitutes is higher than the demand for male prostitutes. No, I am no longer married, and in so choosing, did not surrender my principles. In fact, I upheld my principles. Marcus, you opened this thread with the question, "Is prostitution necessarily bad?" Yet, your comments have less to do with what you think about prostitution and more to do with what you think about marriage. If you think marriage, as an institution, is skewed unfairly against you, then either don't get married or prior to doing so, execute a prenuptial agreement to protect yourself. There are no rules in marriage that qualify as a "financial transaction"? You should check your own statement. 97% of the people who seek and require alimony are women Check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/millionaire-divorce/ Notice any patterns?

First of all, you are not worth trolling, however you would define it. Your discussion on "your" thread my fine friend was about prostitution, correct? Therefore, are you now changing the focus of "your" thread? Just want to be sure. A... LOL you but you *are* trolling my thread. The irony.... And no, I'm not changing the focus of the thread. I was drawing similarities between prostitution and the modern institution of marriage. It's playing out to be not all that different if you pay attention to the real world around you. From a purely mathematical perspective marriage does'nt make a whole lot of sense for most men. Oh and by the way, if you can't play nice just GTFO. I don't have the time or the inclination to address assclowns jamming up my thread.

Currently about 20% of the world's richest people are women, until the remaining husbands die, whereupon will be 100% Women control 65 percent of global spending and more than 80 percent of U.S. spending. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663594/women-dominate-the-global-market-place-here-are-5-keys-to-reaching-them And that is a well known statistic. Actuarially, women outlived men by seven (7) plus years. I believe it has dropped a tad in the last few decades. I think that Marcus is Gary's clone. He seems just as uninformed, effete and well pretty clueless. A... And I think you're starting to troll my thread. 80% means far more. And "spending" money is not the same as "earning" it.

Yes.

^ The term "mistress" has another name: "kept woman". There is no such term as "kept man" by my knowledge. A gigolo is a prostitute, not a mistress. A mistress is maybe a species of prostitute, but more "high class" and caters to a single rich man. As of today, there are far more rich men than there are women. I would put most wives maybe somewhere between 25 and 40. The distinction is significantly blurred due to perverse incentives in the divorce court system (which encourages wives to divorce early and just take the money). In America, the divorce rate is over 50% and it is over 70% initiated by the woman. We live in a society of perverse incentives and many loopholes/scams. Most caused by the government. This is by no means the only example topic. I can go on at length about fraudulent disability claims, predatory lawsuits, lobbying (aka bribing), rent control gaming, special licenses etc and on and on.

Yeah, a wife and a prostitute are not exactly the same thing. However, this does not take away the fact that there are financial transactions in both wife/husband and prostitute/johns relationships and it's usually from man to woman. This "gender skew" of wealth transfer leads me to believe there are underlying biological/evolutionary reasons for this. Why are prostitutes mostly women? Why are johns mostly men (gay and straight)? Why are there no "male" mistresses? You say marriage means a life partner (assuming this means "lifelong" partner), but you are no longer married? I don't want to know why your not married (not my business) so much as why you didn't follow your own principle/belief?