Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts

Broken units, broken men

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:27:29 -0600

I have not clearly understood the concept of broken units within a concept.

Specifically I am having problems figuring out how the concept of "broken units" apply to the problem of reconizing human rights to people who, because of a physical condition, like a severe neurological disorder, are uncapable of abstract thinking.

My question is whether rights are for men as units, or for the concept of "men".
If rights are for men as a concept, then it is applied to all men, regardless of the particular units (individuals) who for some reason do not match the concept of an animal with abstract thinking capabilities.
But if rights are for individuals, for the units, then I have a problem with recognizing rights in people without this capability.

I can't deal with a broken table the way I deal with a normal table. Even if the broken table is still a broken unit of the "table" concept, I wouldn't use it as a table and place a heavy object on it.
Same with animals. A horse which cannot walk is still a horse, but I can't treat it like a horse: I can't ride it. A a cow that does not secrete milk is still a cow, but I can't milk it or sell it or even treat it as I would treat a normal cow. For example, I may decide not to invest any money in veterinary care.

Then, in human species, what kind of treatment do severily mentally disabled people deserve /are they entitled to? What is the rationale for it?
If they have a right to life, for example, on what grounds do they have such a right? On the grounds of being broken units of a "man" concept? Do we acknolwedge rights to a concept of man or to individual men?

Are trivial optional choices open to moral evaluation

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:22:41 -0600

QUOTE (TLD @ Feb 28 2010, 02:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, while morality is a code of values for the purpose of guiding man's choices, all choices are not dictated by morality; e.g. the flavor of ice cream you choose - subjective.

You do not seem to understand the nature of morality. You seem to be wrongly presupposing that morality does not refer to particular facts. As a classic example of why that is completely wrong, it is a fact that some men are sexually attracted to men, and some men are sexually attracted to women. It is therefore immoral for a gay man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a woman, and it is just as immoral for a straight man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a man. The choice is not subjective, it is objective, and it is a function of the objective nature of the individual. Objectivism is never compatible with subjectivism.

The Coffee Party

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:38:48 -0500

In an effort to take advantage of the Tea Party's popularity, The Coffee Party was formed.

Advertised as a community to pacify people, the members of this group verbally attack people who don't agree with them, demand people to blindly support Obama, and demand people to satisfy THEIR positions in order to agree on something.

They think we live in a Democracy
They are essentially liberals who are displeased with what Obama has been unable to do (as opposed to the Tea Party, who opposes what Obama has already done)

"Coffee Party" is stupid, and really, a dissapointment. I like Coffee. I wish they wouldn't taint Coffee by associating themselves with it.

I walk the Line

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:46:24 -0600

I make art. The art world seems to be dominated by collectivists. Professionally I am trying to find my way. I am not sure if I want to support galleries or make money off of collectivists organizations. Then I think if I pull money from them to fund my own plans it could be worth it.
In the last couple months I have been putting my work up on the 'Deviant Art' website. There are 80,000 artists posting their work and reacting to each other on the site and I receive a great deal of praise and interest from them for my work. The praise mostly comes from people who are emotionally driven. I often praise and attempt to communicate with other Artists when I am interested in seeing what their potential might produce. I use the journal to talk about what has motivated me creatively. I have a gallery of my own work, and a gallery of favorites that I have compiled after looking through thousands of images from other artists favorites.
The cons of the site are that the Administration is predominantly Liberal, and continually feature and promote artists who fall in line with their political agendas while some times censoring those who don't. They allow anyone to post so the site is bombarded with 13 year old cartoon sketches.
The name 'Deviant Art' implies vampires and fetish, but it also implies (the reason I finally decided to join) a way to market or sell art outside of the traditional gallery system. At the moment my work is only open to view and comment; I haven't decided to sell anything yet.
I came to the Objectivism Online forum a couple years ago because of my love for Ayn Rand. I don't get the satisfaction from these Visual Arts threads that I get from her novels. I wasn't compelled to return here, though I often thought about it. Maybe I wasn't feeling confident enough in my own appraisal of my work to withstand the onslaught of dozens of non-art-making critics expressing their dislike. As I saw happen to several artists who posted their work here. To me the lack of activity in the Visual Arts Threads is a testament to some repellent forces to the creative spark that I would like to abate.
I am trying to understand Ayn Rands Aesthetics, but it is still a floating abstraction to me. I am not sure if my work lives up to her definition of what art is. I am wondering if my art could be of value to some of the 'Individuals' who also value Ayn Rand's philosophy. Will it diminish my individuality to align my art making with Romantic Realism?

The main point I want to make is this... I can go to Deviant Art to get praise, market myself, admire and learn from other artists, make friends, give advice, or I can come here and do what? What exactly is this visual arts forum for? Could this become or is there a place where individualist artists thrive?

My gallery at Deviant Art: http://tym-benn.deviantart.com/gallery/

Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:14:17 -0600

I say we owe it to the victims of 9/11. We should have done it five years ago!

Five reason, go ahead.

Brandon

Apple's iPad

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:20:07 -0600

Not sure how many of forum members have been following the iPad saga since it broke in late January (or how many that even care ), but they go on pre-order this morning (3/12) at 0830 EST. I plan on ordering one of the 3G models myself.

Like some Apple products in the past, there are a fair share of naysayers claiming it will not sell well (as it is not an essential device that clearly has a single focused purpose). Others welcome it as a "convergence device" that will do many of their favorite things (and do them well). I will be interested in seeing who has pegged this one and who is off the mark.

Non Objective art

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:46:49 -0600

*** Split from another thread. - sN ***

QUOTE (Howard Roark @ Feb 10 2010, 07:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An unintelligible, amorphous, obscure, indefinite and ambiguous collection of smears on a canvas, which has to be given meaning arbitrarily through an enigmatic code of mysterious symbolism hidden from a rational mind, is definitively not an example of art under Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory.

I disagree. As I see it, we have a choice: we can either be sticklers and strictly adhere to Rand's requirement of objectively identifiable, intelligible subjects and meanings in art, or we can follow her lead in the opposite direction and grant exceptions for the non-objective art forms that we like. Personally, I prefer the latter.

See, the problem is that if we opt to be sticklers, then music should also not be considered a valid art form under Rand's criteria, since it is no more objectively meaningful than abstract paintings.

As Rand said, music "cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful countryside or a stormy sea...even concepts which, intellectually, belong to a complex level of abstraction, such as 'peace,' 'revolution,' 'religion,' are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music."

She also said that "until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music," and, therefore, that our musical tastes and judgments must be treated as a "subjective matter."

So, I prefer to opt to not be a stickler. Since exceptions can be made for a non-objective art form like music, then there is no reason that they can't also be made for other non-objective art forms (from which millions of people get as much emotional impact and meaning as Rand did from music).

QUOTE (Howard Roark @ Feb 10 2010, 07:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps the meaning of the author's paintings can only be revealed to a distinct class of art critics, but I, for one, cannot distinguish most of them from this doodle...

Not to be disrespectful, but, to me, your inability to distinguish between Tym's work and the image you posted is nothing more than an indication of your personal visual limitations.

J

Thomas Jefferson removed from Texas school curriculum.

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:26:57 -0600

Jefferson has been replaced by John Calvin in History classes in the great state of Texas.

What a horrible fate God has predetermined us for.

Private Firefighters

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:22:20 -0500

A free society would consist only of private firefighting companies, right? That would mean each property owner would have the option of signing a contract with one of those companies. But if there is a fire on a property that has no contract with any company, does the potential of the fire(spreading to other properties) give the companies a right to go on their property and distinguish the fire?

Free-Trade League = Isolationism = Good

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:46:23 -0600

What if the US entered into an agreement with other countries that basically said that there would be absolute unregulated free-trade and immigration between them. Each country can make whatever laws it wants, but has to accept those two rules. There would also be a basic bill of rights (civil rights like due process, free speech, something basic about property), that each country had to 'fulfill' to be in the league.

This league would operate unilaterally in all its foreign policy decisions. I mean that theoretically. That it recognized no authority in the world beyond its unilateral self-interest. This is similar to a 'league of democracies' that Neo-conproglib something or others talk about. It would act as a hegemony of sorts that only acted to preserve its territories and trade interests.

Significantly, to make this more practical (and avoid 'realism' or foreign resource adventures), its own rules would forbid trade with nations not in the league. It would also have a policy of admitting anyone into the league who met its requirements.

So, the net result is to completely shut-out collectivist nations, and the justification is that individuals in the free nations aren't artificially bound to their national market. That would be to prevent protectionism or mercantalism, while preserving a form of isolationism.

I love cheap Chinese crap, and I love cheap Saudi oil, and for a while cheap chinese money built a lot of big nice real estate up (next to the forclosed houses, how many failing commercial developments are there?). But I don't think I properly earned any of those through a fair trade.

What do you think? Unlimited free trade with qualifying 'free nations' and a permanent embargo against all others?

The Evil of the United Nations -- But the US is much more responsible

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:27:56 -0600

On another site somebody has posted a lot of material about the UN. I have posted my experiences in Iraq about the UN. Those interested in knowing about my UN experiences can see http://www.solopassion.com/node/7451
The OP's posts on the same forum are here http://www.solopassion.com/node/7296
The OP has given the usual type of sarcastic response which is of interest to me as a subject of study -- so this is likely to develop into a good contest, though of-course I have no intention of winning in such arguments. I am waiting for others to comment on that forum.

476 Rome, 2008 Washington D.C.

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:28:00 -0600

476 Rome, 2008 Washington D.C.

On the Dead End America Reached in Politics, and How the Way Out Has to Begin in Metaphysics

One of the many reasons why Ancient Greece was and remains the greatest among history's great nations is the fact that Greek civilization never collapsed. It never died the kind of ugly death that Rome died during the 5th century, or the United States has been dying in our days. The Greeks fell in battle: they were defeated by the Macedonians, and later the Romans. Their culture, which was respected and admired by their conquerors, lived on as part of the Macedonian and Roman empires, and took centuries to gradually fade away. The name of Greece continues to ring clean and honorable in our ears because the Greeks never chose their own destruction. They never surrendered their greatness out of their own will.

If one looks at American culture as a whole, it is evident that the United States no longer has a chance to earn such an honor. Thanks to our military strength, there has never been the remotest possibility of our being conquered by a nation like China or the United Arab Emirates--nations that, like Macedon and Rome of old, admire the material fruits of our culture and seek to imitate some of its concrete aspects, but lack the fundamental spirit that made it possible--and more importantly, American culture, taken as a whole, has been rejecting that fundamental spirit.

The collapse of a civilization is a drawn-out process that does not happen within one day, nor even one year. Rome had been declining for centuries before Odoacer--the first Barbarian king--took it over in 476, and that particular year brought little visible change into the lives of the inhabitants of the empire, who continued to refer to themselves as Romans. Similarly, the United States has been adopting Socialist policies ever since the passage of the first "anti-trust" act in 1890; the 2008 election is just another step down a road we have been traveling on since before Ayn Rand was born. Assigning a date to the collapse of a civilization is an exercise in abstraction: one has to choose the date of an event that symbolizes the whole centuries-long process; an event that summarizes the essence of what brought about the downfall; an event that marks a point of no return.

Dr. Peikoff recenty called Obama "the first anti-American candidate." Indeed, while there have been many un-American candidates and Presidents in the past (in fact, most of the Presidents in the 20th century can be called un-American), none of them has been as avowedly anti-American as Obama. None of them kept hearing "God damn America!" as the gospel of God during their regular Sunday visits to the institution most responsible for shaping their sense of life, their ideas of morality, and their whole implicit philosophy. None of them had the likes of Bill Ayers as their closest associates. If we give them the benefit of the doubt, we might still say about all past Presidents that they were fundamentally well-meaning individuals who honestly wanted to secure a bright future for America, but were awfully handicapped as a result of the betrayal of the nation by its nihilist intellectual establishment. Obama's choice of his friends and mentors makes it clear that securing a bright future for America is definitely not his goal.

A nation cannot elect one of its enemies as its chief executive and survive for long. If we want to find a date symbolic of America's descent into statism, I cannot think of any event in the past, nor do I think there will be any event in the future, that captures it better than the election that turned the first anti-American candidate into the first anti-American president and gave him the full support of the House as well as the Senate. November 4, 2008, is the date history ought to record as the day the first American Republic fell.

Like all ideas, such historical symbolism has far more significance than most people realize. When told of an event that took place in the city of Rome in 450 A.D., most people will automatically consider it to have been an event in the Roman Empire. The more historically savvy among them might note that it was very late in the history of that empire, i.e. in its declining stage, but they will still be naturally inclined to think of it as a part of Rome's history and as a product of Rome's culture. Because 476 A.D. is the widely accepted year of the fall of Rome, very few would think of it as a medieval event. On the other hand, when told of an event in the year 500, everyone will easily recognize it as one that happened in the early medieval times, and one that had nothing to do with the original Roman culture.

Thus, like all abstractions, assigning a date to the fall of the original United States is much more than just an idle academic exercise. Until it becomes widely accepted that we have not been able to keep the constitutional Republic the Founders gave us, everything that happens in America will continue to be seen as an American event, and as a product of American culture, i.e. of capitalism. Only when people become aware that Washington has been taken over by an element foreign to the nation's founding spirit will they stop identifying Washington's actions with that of a capitalist government; only then will they naturally think of it as having nothing to do with the original American culture.

Many patriotic Americans will say that it is premature at this point to declare the end of the Republic. Shouldn't I at least wait to see what policies Obama actually implements (given that he has yet to fully disclose the exact nature and extent of the changes he has in store for us) before pronouncing him the Odoacer of America? But I think, if anything, one has to wonder whether November 4 of this year is too late a date to name: the United States has been much closer to a democracy than a republic for several decades now. This was not the first election in which a candidate tried to gain the support of 51 per cent of the voters by promising them a little money, to be taken from the remaining 49 per cent--and did not even find it necessary to try and explain how his plan was to be reconciled with the inalienable rights Jefferson had written about. However, it was the first election in which the candidate flatly said into the face of a member of the victimized 49 per cent that his intention was to spread their wealth around, and that he knew this will make them vote against him, but it was the other 51 per cent whose vote he was counting on.

But have we really passed a point of no return? Many are hoping to see a repeat of the 1994 elections in 2010 that will give Obama a Republican Congress, making him as impotent to do too much harm as Bill Clinton was. One has to realize, though, that the Republican Party is in a very different situation today than it was sixteen years ago. Back then, the more patriotic half of America's population still had confidence in them as the representatives of their principles and ideals. The elder George Bush was seen as a bad apple among them, and his four years of pseudo-capitalism as an aberration. Today, after having witnessed how the Republicans rose to full power in all branches of the Federal Government and how they used that power to deliver the nation into the hands of its enemies, it is much more difficult not to notice that all the apples are rotten. A defeated, demoralized, and discredited party cannot mount an effective opposition to a determined gang of ruthless power-lusters they have just surrendered to without a fight.

Restrictions on free speech, such as the Campaign Finance "Reform," which was personally gift-wrapped for the Democrats by Senator McCain and autographed for them by President Bush, and the "Fairness" Doctrine whose hideous ghost has risen from the grave to haunt us, will make it even more difficult for any opponent to challenge the Democrats' power.

A genuinely pro-American idealist in the Republican Party who is a good communicator, and also happens to have a lot of his own funds, might yet bring about a second Reagan Revolution. But such people are very rare--and you have to realize that this very period, the last couple of lame-duck months of the Bush administration, is nothing other than the final petering out of the Reagan presidency's afterglow in the Republican Party's fortunes. A second such Republican resurgence would bring a very welcome break from the onmarch of nihilism, but the nature of the Republican Party precludes it from being anything more than a temporary respite, after which the nihilist destroyers are bound to continue marching on. The rare revolutionary is inevitably going to be succeeded by compromisers, "compassionates," "mavericks," and collaborators like the ones who have succeeded Reagan and handed power back to the Democrats. He may delay them by a couple of decades, but he will not bring about a restoration of the Republic.

It is time to make it official: Washington, D.C. has fallen to the Barbarians.

America, however, consists of more than the District of Columbia. American culture consists of more than the nation's intellectual establishment. As the heroic spirit of Greece lived on within the empires that conquered it, the true American sense of life has continued to persist under the rule of the nihilist intelligentsia. The antagonism between these two elements is so sharp and irreconcilable that it is a mistake to "look at American culture as a whole." It would be an injustice to many freedom-loving, independent-souled individuals to accuse them of having chosen their own destruction, or willfully surrendered their own greatness. What has in truth happened to them is that they have become a minority in a what is now a democracy. The ancient Greeks were conquered on the battlefield; the modern Americans, the ones who truly deserve the name, have been outgunned in the cold civil war of a democracy's voting booths.

They will continue to be outgunned until they are armed with and have learned the use of the only weapon that can allow them to defeat the Barbarians and successfully establish a new Republic of freedom and justice: a rational philosophy. That weapon has been manufactured and is ready to be delivered--but it has yet to be ordered in the first place. Most Americans have not yet realized that their current guns are and will forever remain useless against the Barbarians and will rarely allow them to achieve anything but to shoot themselves in the foot. And most of them are genuinely at a loss to understand how a philosophy--the abstractest of all the abstract ideas, the most "academic" of all "academic exercises"--is going to help defend them from the very concrete machine guns of Obama's agents. In this respect, too many Americans are still with Stalin: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

In the Iliad, it was not until the death of Patroclos that Achilles decided to rejoin the fight against the Trojans, armed with a brilliant new shield made for him by Hephaistos and delivered by Thetis. The role of Antilochos--who brought Achilles the news of his friend's death--now falls upon us: we have to awaken people to the fact that the Republic that was born in 1788 is no longer alive; that conservative political activism has failed to conserve it, and will be equally unable to bring it back to life.

The second part of our task has more to do with metaphysics than with politics: We have to get Americans to recognize that there is something that can give them back their country. We have to shed light on the fact that philosophy, far from being an idle ivory-tower pastime, has a momentuous influence on a nation's life (as it has on life in general). We have to explain them why it is crucial for their survival to know the truth not only as far as concretes are concerned, but also to form the right abstractions. We have to make them see why they cannot afford to rely on faith in any area of life. In a nutshell: we have to clear up the confusion surrounding the relationship of consciousness and existence--we have to explain why ideas matter.

Updates on the Amazon Tax

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:43:22 -0600

I've just updated the web site RepealTheAmazonTax.com. In addition to updating the text, I've also added the following.

(1) A quick poll:

Should the "Amazon Tax" be repealed?polling

(Yes, please do take it!)

(2) Buttons for social sharing:

(Yes, please do click!)

(3) A Facebook cause page:

Join the Facebook cause
"Repeal the Amazon Tax"

(Yes, please do join!)

(4) A list of further reading:

The Amazon Tax and the Affiliates Amendment by Ari Armstrong (12 March 2009)
Beware the Amazon by David Harsanyi (12 March 2010)
Letter Published on the Amazon Tax by Diana Hsieh (12 March 2010)
Colorado Democrats strangle Internet entrepreneurs by Michelle Malkin (11 March 2010)
Tax Foundation Takes On Amazon Tax by Ari Armstrong (11 March 2010)
Stop the 'Amazon Tax'! by Ari Armstrong (10 March 2010)
Colorado Screws Amazon and Its Affiliates by Diana Hsieh (10 March 2010)
Report: "Amazon Taxes" Will Worsen Budget Problems, Deter Business by The Tax Foundation (8 March 2010)

You can best keep up-to-date on this issue by joining the low-volume e-mail list NoAmazonTax.

Thanks to everyone who has blogged, shared, tweeted, e-mailed, and otherwise helped spread the word!

Cross-posted from Metablog

Good looks as a rational value

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:26:41 -0600

[Link to the original post on my blog]

Good looks as a rational value

Is it shallow to care how one looks in the eyes of others? Is it a sign of some psychological weakness?

The problem is in the question itself. The action, or intention itself - is neither good nor bad - it depends on the wider context of an individual's psychology.

Some use good looks as a way to achieve "social stature" which they use as a replacement for self esteem. If you've ever wondered about the frantic way some people try to sell their life as a success story of a top model on social sites like Facebook, the above, in my opinion, is the reason.

However there are those who take pleasure openly in being aesthetically valued and enjoyed by others.
For them being appreciated for their looks, dressing up in the morning to welcome a world worth showing one's beauty to - is a pursuit of a rational value.

The appearance of a human being can communicate beauty which can not be found in nature and not in the most sensational sunset: It is beauty of character.
A proud way of standing, a hidden smile ready to bloom for the right occasion are a sight to enjoy for every man with a positive feeling about people and life.

A physical beauty to match a beautiful character reflects spiritual perfection in physical form and integrates them (as I will explain later in more detail). This integration between the spiritual and the physical is a cognitive need that comes from the nature of our mind as holding knowledge abstractly.

In what way can we "see" nobility, or pride? Only in physical, material, tangible things like facial expressions, body language and - body structure and facial features.
Spirituality has no visibility except through the material.
You can see this need to express spiritual perfection through physical perfection in art, where heroes have perfect proportions in addition to the right body language and expression. [See example]

Not every element in one's physical appearance reflects on one's character. If one is tough and truthful, it will reflect in one's habitual way of holding one's facial muscles. If one is proud and confident, it will show in one's manner of standing and walking. Obesity, in many cases, is an expression of psychological stress. But something like a 90-60-90 figure vs. a 80-70-90 figure (less feminine looking) reflects no spiritual trait.
It still remains, however, that physical beauty, even of the kind that does not reflect traits of character, creates an integration of the spiritual and physical in the viewer's mind, as can be seen in art.

Appreciation, in general, from others one appreciates is a rational value, even a psychological need. If one considers oneself worthy of appreciation then getting that appreciation from others is a tremendous value and pleasure.
The human mind is a powerful thing, when others are logical; their opinions mirror our own understanding of reality.
Self-esteem is a deep psychological need and a value one cannot live without. When our own recognition of our worth and achievements is reflected to us by others, we experience heightened awareness of the reality of our own value, which is very pleasurable.

Allowing others to enjoy one's physical beauty compliments that need (for people of self-esteem).

Consider the wonderful things physical beauty allows us to celebrate:
The romantic atmosphere of a date in which both look phenomenal (especially the woman) is largely due to the declaration that beauty is a great way to celebrate and enhance finding each other valuable.
When a woman takes special care to dress up for a date she is implicitly communicating to her partner that she sees him as a value and because of that getting his appreciation and enjoyment from her looks is a value to her - something she is willing to put the time into.

Investing in one's look on every day basis is a way to celebrate a world in which one is worthy of being seen and enjoyed by others. It is a reflection of seeing the world as good - as a place inhabited by good people (perhaps not all, or even many - but it at least expresses the recognition that some exist).

Notice that when one views the world as bad and people as evil one looses the desire to look good (I am talking about a rational person here, not about those who want to look good to win a competition with their friends).

Ever wondered why some women like shopping so much? Here is why: A piece of clothing that compliments one's figure and matches a certain event or atmosphere allows one to experience how one would like to be seen, evaluated and experienced by someone else in a certain occasion.

Clothes are like a piece of a fantasy, half real, stored in one's closet for future use. Women take pleasure in storing such fantasies in their closet because that makes the fantasies half real - a promise for an enjoyable future.
For example, buying a dress that emphasizes a woman's feminine features holds the romantic fantasy of a magical evening out with someone she admires. An elegant looking suit is a way to celebrate one's image as a good worker, appreciated as such by others, and so on.

The same is true for men, but more so for women because in romantic relationships women are the ones being pursued (although, this is another topic which I will leave for another time).

And in conclusion, take Will Smith's words on the value of good looks:

http://www.youtube.com/v/9qkD4bw-bs4&h...S&fs=1&

__________________________________

If you enjoyed this essay and would like to keep my blog running and updating, please consider donating. To Receive updates of all posts, you can follow the blog on Facebook or Google (link on the sidebar on my blog).

Clinton preparing report on US human rights to the UN

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:22:33 -0600

Clinton State Department Working With 'Advocacy Groups' to Prepare 'Human Rights' Report on U.S. to Give to U.N.
By Penny Starr

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62698

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the State Department is soliciting comments from citizens, advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations on the human rights record of the United States.

“Human rights are universal, but their experience is local. This is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves,” Clinton told a press briefing at the State Department, where she unveiled the “2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.”

Clinton said the U.S. is now gathering facts on its own record because – as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council – it is participating in the UNHRC’s “universal periodic review” process.

[...]

The Human Rights Council has been criticized for disproportionately criticizing Israel at the expense of other situations around the world. In this March 2, 2009 photo, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki used the HRC as a platform to condemn the “illegitimate Zionist regime” and call for Israeli leaders to be indicted for crimes against humanity.

[...]

Posner said the State Department is holding a series of meetings around the country to gather information it will use for the 20-page report it plans to submit to the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council in November.

“We’re not doing it in a formulaic way,” Posner said. “We’re doing these sessions, these public sessions, we’re inviting in advocacy groups from around the country – we had one in New Orleans, we had one in New York, we had one here is Washington.

[...]

“We’re going to hear them,” Posner said. “We’re going to incorporate their thoughts and suggestions into a report to the U.N. And then we’re going to show up at the end of the year and present that report and get comments from other countries.”

[...]

“I would hope that on their listening tour, the State Department will listen to social conservatives about the rights of the unborn child being violated,” Ruse said. “We shall see if the State Department is interested in the proper understanding of human rights.”

In addition to the United States, 15 countries will undergo UPR by the U.N. Human Rights Council this year: They include Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Lebanon, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, Andorra, Bulgaria and Croatia.

What do you guys suppose will make the list? Think the Waco Siege will be on there?

Bill Maher

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:45:23 -0600

I am curious to know what your opinions are on Bill Maher. I find that, the more I watch him, the more I like him. In some ways, he is a typical American liberal, and has numerous positions that I disagree with...he supports the health care bill, for instance. But I find that, when I agree with him, I agree with him whole-heartedly...and that happens more than I thought it would. He constantly lampoons religion, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and (as I recently discovered) is prone to launching passionate defenses of Israel. Not something I would have expected. I just saw an interview he did with Netanyahu that was quite well-done. Even though I disagree with a lot of his views, I find myself agreeing with what he spends the most time talking about.

Apart from being hilarious, I find his best feature is that he tells is like it is. When Jerry Falwell died, for instance, he came right out and said "death is not always sad." Not what you heard from most people (even ones who disagreed with his politics), when he died. I also like his very candid take on the American people, in general. They're stupid. I think he's largely right.

I was not a fan of Religiulous, however. It was funny for about 15 minutes, but making fun of religion is not difficult, and it's not really material for a full-length movie.

Moral Obligation To Help

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:18:35 -0600

I recently attended a philosophy class where the question was raised: If there is no cost to yourself, do you have a moral obligation to help strangers?

My initial reaction was that one has no obligation to help others (excluding those one values) regardless of the lack of cost for that help.
Later I started thinking and changed my opinion. My reasoning revolves around two premises.

The first is that one should be honest with others because one presumes that others are morally good (I believe I read this in OPAR, on the subsection on the virtue of honesty).

The second is that one should denounce any vice or morally corrupt person one comes in contact with. One should also praise any virtue or morally good person one finds. Failure to do the first amounts to sanction. Failure to do the second is similarly important. One is morally obligated to do both.

So my tenuous conclusion is that: based upon the presumption of goodness and the requirement that one rewards the good, one is obligated to help strangers when such help will not cost the helper anything.

I am still emotionally attached to my initial reaction, and would prefer to be wrong (it makes more "gut" sense to me).
I could be wrong about the two premises (there might not be a presumption of goodness or a moral obligation to reward the good, or the presumption of goodness could be weak enough to not require any obligation apaert from honesty).
This is an almost useless question because there are never any circumstances where one can benefit others with no cost to one's self.
The answer to this question will just help pinpoint the reason why people are not required to help strangers (it could be that the fact that others' existence is not enough to produce any moral obligation of help, or that there is no moral obligation because any help carries with it a cost).
The reason I am asking this is because the great majority (as far as I know, all) of Objectivism does not clash with either my emotions or reason, this question appears to do so, and I would like to reconcile them.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Edit: Just to clarifiy, I am asking the same question to you that was asked in my philosophy class. I also am asking if I misunderstood (or forgot, or misremembered) any part of the Objectivist philosophy.

Why do I love my wife and not other women?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:58:55 -0600

If I were to rank all women I know (say, women around my age, excluding girls, teenagers and very old ladies) according to their virtues (independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride) my wife would rank high, but not the highest.
If, say, I could rank the 100 women I have had a chance to know enough as to make a judgement over their character, my wife would rank, say, the 19th.
However, this is the woman I love the most.

Why haven't I married the other 18 who are on top of my wife? And more importantly, why don't I love those other 18 more than my wife?

Well, these are the explanations:

In some cases, I did not dare to approach them romantically, as they seemed so virtuous, so beautiful, and I felt I had no chance to be loved by them.
In some cases I fell in love with them, and approached them romantically, but they have not fallen in love with me. Maybe I was not virtuous enough, or physically attractive enough. I did not arouse the "integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire" that Ayn Rand talks about.
In some cases they falled in love with me, but I have not fallen in love with them. They were not physically attractive enough, and so they did not elicit that "integrated response".
In some cases they were already in love with other guy.
In other cases any of us would have that very specific feature, preference, or style that would make coexistence unattractive. For example, one of them smoked heavily, and I can't imagine kissing a woman with a strong tobacco scent on her lips. Other one loved sports, and I am not very fond of sports. Another one would love dancing, and I am not good at dancing... and so on.
Finally, I met some of them after I had married my wife, and I didn't want to destroy the relationship I'd already built, which was a good one, to start building something new that could or could not work.

Is love all about valueing or has it to do with sharing life experiences?

I remember that passage of The Little Prince of Saint Exupery, where the Little Prince finds a garden full of roses, at least as beautiful as the single rose he took care of in his small planet.
He realizes than even when there are thousands of roses on Earth, it was HIS rose, the rose with which he had spent time and efforts, the one he loved the most.

So, in my case, it is the sum of experiences I have shared with my wife (the good ones but also the bad ones, when we have struggled to get ahead) that give meaning to our relationship and our love.

If I was to love a woman because I value their virtues, I would be getting divorced every two years and marrying (or at least LOVING, which worries me the most) a new one, because I am constantly meeting extraordinary women at work. This also makes me think in Dagny in AS, falling in love with virtuous men one after another. Who can say that, five years after marrying John Galt, she would meet David Smith, still more virtuous than Galt, and fall in love with him?

What do you think about this?

Who Was The Greatest Military Leader Of All Time?

Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:36:01 -0600

Of course, i couldnt put every militaty leader, there are so many. But who do you think was the best and why?

I say it was Ghengis Khan, the way the planned attacks and used communication and won battles mainly with light infantry and with much smaller forces and made the largest empire in history surely makes him one of the best.

Sure they didnt really spread civilization, but this thread is not about that. Im just strictly talking about military matters.

Equality

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:22:56 -0600

I am currently writing an editorial piece concerning the misuse of the word "equality" in political, economic, and social contexts and analyzing the nonsense of egalitarianism. My problem at the moment is providing a basic definition and explanation of equality. Following an introduction, the piece in question currently reads:

"What is equality? A dictionary will provide one with a basic answer: the state of being identical in value (i.e. “the same”). However, one must realize that one entity cannot be another entity, only itself. The entity can never be fully equal to something else. Two objects, no matter how similar they appear to be, cannot be the same thing as they occupy different , particular quantities of matter. Equality in a material sense cannot exist when such a definition is held as it is."

Simply put, did I explain this correctly, or have I made some errors in the logic? The next step will be a comparison to equality in concepts (to set the grounds for a comparison on interpretation of rights based on common phrases that use "equality").

Any and all feedback is appreciated.