RoR: Forum

Linz, you bastard!!!! Argggg! Just when my subscription runs out, you nail down a Nathaniel Branden interview and a (supposed) Playboy-esque pictorial of SOLOHQ's favorite food fanatic?!? Damn you straight to hell.

Alright...I'll just scrounge up the loose change around the house and try to subscribe. Bastards.

Post 1

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 6:56am

A naked centrefold of Jennifer!!!!

Im dribbling already!!!!!

No wonder Chris has given up on homosexuality!!!! :-)

Post 2

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 7:55am

Not an argument, but rather some observations. Regi never really addresses Linz's argument regarding homosexuality in animals (not beings of volitional conciousness) being evidence of a creature's (man is, after all, a highly evolved animal) sexual nature. I also do not think he adequately addresses the issue of multiple use (i.e., digestive system, from mouth to arse, is designed to keep us alive. But we use it for other stuff--and entire industries have been built around making delicious food that tempts you to eat too much of it and is not healthy--is ALL of this immoral, because it is not 'natural use of the involved organs?) On balance, Dr. Chris and you win the argument for these reasons, but also because sexual orientation for me is one of the many things about people that I accord very little weight in my dealings with them, unless I am trying to make some sweet, sweet love. It's largely a private thing that does not directly afect me. The furvor over homosexuality, and the degree to which someone objects to it, and wants to write a book branding it immoral, I think may be indicative of their desire to control others rather than mind their own business. Many, many people would be happier if they just minded their own business and let others find happiness and success in their own way, providing interests do not conflict. Whether good faith or not, everything else Regi has ever written on this site of which I am aware is rock-solid, great thinking, and it would be a mistake to drive him off, especially since he has gone out of his way to be professional and polite throughout. Obviously, he is besmirching no one, and evidently has no problem letting everyone do as they please--even if that means homosexuality. Just like you, Linz, denounce rap or postmodern art, or other modern music, but aern't going to completely write someone off if their other values are good, eh?

Naked Jennifer--good, very good...way to play to the breeders!

Post 3

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 9:21am

Hi Linz, Regi, Dr. Chris, and everyone:

What defines homosexuality? The inclination and attraction to others of the same gender? Or acting on those inclinations? It seems that Linz and Dr. Chris say homosexuality means the former, and Regi says the latter.

So break down Regi's position. He doesn't say the former--the inclination or attraction, is immoral (or at least I do not believe so from what I have read--I could be wrong). I'm not even sure if he disputes whether the inclination is natural. Basically, there is no cause for conflict here, because no one is commenting on the morality of this phase of the issue.

The second part of his position is that ~acting~ on same-gender attraction or impulses is immoral, just like a person who wants to steal isnt a thief until he does so. I dont know what his position is on man-woman anal sex. But I believe his argument as to WHY man on man sex is immoral is that--it causes illness and a greater chance of death, and represents a dangerous misuse of the body, similar to smoking, using drugs, etc.

Okay, fine, let's assume for a moment that there is such a thing as the "gay lifestyle" and that the "gay lifestyle" is more dangerous than some other lifestyle. Smoking, drinking, eating the wrong foods (or eating too much), engaging in high risk entertainment (like multiple unprotected sex hetero-partners and sky diving) ALL increase the risk of injury or death. But they are what make life worth living to those who participate.

Is there a category for things that increase risk for a person but so fulfill them and bring them joy and make them feel alive, that it outweighs a statistical increase in risk? Sure. It's called "Things That Are Moral And Proper" But that is if, and only if, the individual himself makes that determination. That's because YOUR life is YOURS, and no one else's. That's also why you shouldn't give a shit about what other people think about who you fuck, or what you drink. The ultimate moral standard is man's life--not existence, but life and happiness.

Post 4

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 11:51am

"Is there a category for things that increase risk for a person but so fulfill them and bring them joy and make them feel alive, that it outweighs a statistical increase in risk? Sure. It's called "Things That Are Moral And Proper" But that is if, and only if, the individual himself makes that determination. That's because YOUR life is YOURS, and no one else's. That's also why you shouldn't give a shit about what other people think about who you fuck, or what you drink. The ultimate moral standard is man's life--not existence, but life and happiness."

I couldnt put it better myself. This is beautiful, Scott.

Post 5

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 2:32pm

Thanks, Robert!

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 3:25pm

Hmm....I thought for sure that photo got deleted. Dang. ;)

J

Post 7

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 6:17pm

Scott,

Although I've been forbidden to discuss this subject on this forum, I must correct one statement, without discussing the subject itself.

You said: The second part of his position is that ~acting~ on same-gender attraction or impulses is immoral

That is not my position at all. I believe acting on the desire results in self-destructive behavior. If someone does not believe it is self-destructive (which most homosexuals obviously do not), it cannot be immoral to act on it. It is not immoral to behave in a way you believe is correct.

If someone believes their behavior is self destructive, but defies their own belief to satisfy that desire, that behavior is immoral. That applies to all behavior.

Morality always requires an informed choice and the ability to choose.

Regi

Post 8

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 6:57pm

Reginald Heatlamp said, "Although I've been forbidden to discuss this subject on this forum ..." and by doing so demonstrated that like his colleague Mr Rat (who claims with equal disingenuousness that he doesn't know the difference between being banned and being moderated) that he is indeed dishonest. Transparently so.

What on earth did Objectivism do to attract people like this?

Post 9

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 7:13pm

Regi, Lindsay made it crystal clear that he was NOT forbidding anyone to discuss anything when he wrote:

"So, what I'm asking here is this: Please respect Chris' right to *say* his last word by *not* engaging him in further debate on this subject. He's clearly stated his wish *not* to be further engaged in his article, and it shouldn't be too much to ask that it be respected, especially by the folk who already feel the subject has received too much attention. If you want to argue with *me*, do so on *this* discussion thread."

There is nothing equivocal in these words. Regi, it's time to let it go.

Barbara

Post 10

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 7:17pm

Regi, you're now under moderation. You have egregiously distorted the truth here, and you know it. See Barbara's post above.

Linz

Post 11

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:22am

Lindsay,
I was going to spend some time putting together a full reply to at least two of your posts on this thread. However, it seems that there is a general consensus that the thread should end here, and I accept that. However, I have to say that I have been very disappointed, to put it mildly, at your responses, hormonal pre-magazine or not. You have accused Regi of saying things that, on examining his writings I can find no evidence for; you have commited I don't know how many sins of logic; calling as epistomological, evidence which no self respecting scientist would be associated with; tarring Regi with the brush of other "sinning" contributors thus trying to demonstrate to the young minds on this forum that what he says is not worth listening to, because he is "associated" with others you have dismissed. You have used vituperative name calling of the schoolyard bully variety, and generally behaved like an enfant terrible, knowing he can be as obnoxious as he wants, because his position as heir apparant makes everyone either sycophantic, or scared to death to challenge you in case they too attract your vitriolic wrath and become "moderated".
You have made allusive responses, not naming the person you wish to attack, and "responding" via editorial comment.
None of this is at all attractive to anyone who seeks merely to discuss and understand philosophy - the meeting of minds. I can try to dismiss this as the bad mannered tantrum of a spoilt brat with no self discipline at all, but for two things. Ayn Rand said, "mistakes of this nature (or size) are not made innocently" which thought causes me to doubt the "innocent" nature of your replies. But for me, much much worse, is your unutterably disgusting descent of speaking of another human being as if they were an object.
I have always accepted as true the statement of a favourite author of mine, "evil begins whenever someone decides to treat another human being as an object". When you refer to someone, not a child shooting Islamfascist scum, but another philosopher with a difference of opinion, as though they were not a human being, but merely an object, and worse, do this behind the barricade of Objectivist philosophy, you sink to a level I have not remotely believed possible of you.
I note you never reply to anyone on a philosophical level; your cronies get some "fun" type one liners, those who offend you get schoolyard bullying. Well, Lindsay Perigo, here's a challenge. Give me a reasoned, philosophical response to why you use abusive, vitupertive objectivisation of people who don't agree with you. Got the balls Linsay? I'm not holding my breath.

Post 12

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 7:02am

Wait wait wait! ~*I*~ reopened the can for worms on THIS particular thread because the article says "Regi, leave it alone," and if you want to argue about it, put it in THIS thread, not the others. So I posted one comment in favor of Linz and Chris, and another setting out in more detail my take on the issues. One of my understandings of Regi's arguments was wrong, so he clarifed, specifically in response to MY article. I feel like a dick if NO ONE was supposed to talk about this anymore, and I instigated Regi. So, to all, apologies.

Is there a thread on this site where I may safely engage Regi on his statement that morality is subjective? I understood that further discussion could be had here (this thread, rather than the various "Homo Hijackers" threads), based on Linz's article. I would like to get to the argument of 'subjective morality''s meaty goodness.

Post 13

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 7:08am

Here it is, in black and white:

"So, what I'm asking here is this: Please respect Chris' right to *say* his last word by *not* engaging him in further debate on this subject. He's clearly stated his wish *not* to be further engaged in his article, and it shouldn't be too much to ask that it be respected, especially by the folk who already feel the subject has received too much attention. If you want to argue with *me*, do so on *this* discussion thread."

Isn't this an invatiation for everyone, including Regi, to further discuss this stuff here? Regi was engaging ME, not Doctor Chris. Again, I feel like a dick. Maybe Regi is being dishonest. It certainly may be--or it may be that he far less certain of his position than he lets on. His last statementt about morality being subjective tells me that, if you dig deeper, he may understand a good many things about Objectivism, but isn't even close to being one. I'd like to further engage him on this, if only to get a clarification as to his understanding of the "subjectivity" of morality.

Post 14

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 8:51am

Scott:
don't indulge in the sort of trivial semantics academics use to dismiss something they can't answer - what the hell does it matter what the "thread" is.? I responded to LP's comment above. And if you really want to engage Regi - well he does have private posts!!

Post 15

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 11:05am

Cass:

What the hell are you talking about? Do I strike you as the sort that uses trivial semantics--or do I write exactly what I mean? Which trivial academic semantics did I use that you refer to? What's your quibble with me, anyway?

I could engage Regi privately, but there is no reason not to do so publicly, and others who read the exchange can better come to an opinion as to whom they believe, and can better answer whether Regi is correct, wrong, or intellectually dishonest. I have gained alot of understanding by reading others' exchanges, and assume some people derive some enjoyment and occasionally, understanding, from mine. That's a good reason, no?

You are a bit cranky. You would be beter received if you made some overture towards being polite and THEN clearly stating your objections. If you're just looking for a fight, I dont feel like it, so move on.
(Edited by Scott DeSalvo on 9/19, 11:07am)

Post 16

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 11:08am

Cass:

It matters where something is posted, because this is Linz's and Joe's site. If they ask me not to post a conversation in one thread, but rather to do so in another, I will. It's called courtesty.
(Edited by Scott DeSalvo on 9/19, 11:09am)

Post 17

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:19pm

Scott:
On my computer, Linsays' article says to post further discussion "here".
It doesn't come out as a link, and I have no way of knowing where "here" is, so I just responded. Also, my interpretation of that was that people wishing to continue the discussion re homosexuality do so on another thread. My issue is with Lindsay Perigos previous 2 posts, which are deceptive, manipulative and full of logical fallacies which I found annoying when he is the one decrying this in someone else; but I became, not "cranky" Scott - that's what I get when I come home and find someones' stray dog has upset my rubbish bin - but shakingly furious at Lindsays' objectivisation of another human being. It hit a big nerve.
And it really is a bit rich that someone on this forum should suggest I get "polite." You mean like calling people names and mocking their personal names? !!!!! And now I really must go. Life is calling.
Cass

Post 18

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:28pm

I think that we are losing focus on the issues that real matter. What matters isn't where, when, or who started this discussion. What matters is that we stop and gain some perspective on the real issue, namely Jen's pic in the Free Rad...

Pianoman

"If Ayn Rand can quote herself over and over again, then so can I!"- Pianoman
(Edited by Adam Buker on 9/19, 8:35pm)

Post 19

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 8:10pm