Deviant sex is broadly a bad idea. The importance and meaning of sex comes from tradition. If you don't respect, care about and value that tradition then don't have sex. You can try to make minor modifications to the sexual tradition to make it work better for you, but large modifications (deviations) are hard and risky, and are a bad focus for your life. (A major reason people do anti-traditional sex is a rebellion kind of thing, much like many people are atheists to rebel against our culture. This is bad and people shouldn't live that way. Life should be about positive values, not about petty squabbling with one's society.)
Sex contrary to the traditional meaning of sex is similar to the "stolen concept" fallacy Rand talks about. It accepts some premises of the traditional sex positions (like the stuff about sex being good and important), while also contradicting a bunch of them. The result doesn't make much sense or work well.
If sex plays a traditional role in your life, I understand. If sex plays no significant role in your life, I understand. If sex plays some other role in your life ... consider what you're doing. Do you have a good reason? In general, don't actively fight with your culture over sex. Do something more productive.
Many people believe homosexuality isn't a choice. I don't know if they also believe BDSM isn't a choice. But who you have sex with, and what your ideas about sex are, actually is a choice.
Some of these choices are made in early childhood and people don't know how to change them later. People also create anger problems in early childhood and are confused about how to stop being such an angry person later in life. That doesn't make anger a non-choice. It's just a bad choice that's hard to undo later (many bad choices have lasting consequences), and it's a reasonable thing to criticize – the problems exist and have consequences, even if solutions are hard to come by. (If you don't know how to fix something entirely, one thing you can do is take steps to mitigate the damage. E.g. you can apologize for getting angry and say you think you're in the wrong. That's better than blaming other people for making you angry and denying that your anger is a flaw.)
The "homosexuality is not a choice" crowd are confused. They say it's genetic. But if it was genetic it'd be easier to change. Hair color is genetic and is changed by dye. Eye color is genetic and can be changed with colored contacts. Having a right arm is genetic, but can be changed with an axe.
What's really hard to change in life isn't genetics, it's memes. Genetics offer a limited obstacle but don't actively do anything to stop you from changing. Memes aren't set in stone at birth, like your DNA; memes can adapt as you try to change. Static memes also have much more knowledge in them than your genes.
The actual details of what to do are messy. For example, casual promiscuity could be seen as contrary to traditions of monogamous marriages, but it also has substantial cultural support today in the US, particularly for young adults. So doing that isn't fighting your culture in a direct or immediate way, though it does clash with some deeper values in our culture.
Some people are into "kinky" stuff that takes a lot of time and attention, and clashes with our culture more clearly (though there are supportive subcultures). Could they change that, and still be happy, if they wanted to and thought their lifestyle was bad? In many cases, yes. Some things are hard to change but they aren't all. Many people can make some changes if they actually want to.
Homosexuality is particularly hard to change. It unfortunately does involve fighting your culture on sex in many locations. There are lots of places where many people strongly disapprove of it and view it as extremely anti-traditional. Some parents still disown their children over it. That motivates many homosexuals try to change, but their success rate is very low. Some homosexuals are sent to reeducation camps (conversion therapy), which again has a very low success rate in addition to often being abusive. Since it's too hard to change, people should just stop being mean to it. Part of why they don't want to do that is they don't want to encourage it. Some people are homosexuals since early childhood and it's very hard to change. But some change to bisexuality or homosexuality at a later age, and many of them change back later, so that was changeable. I think some people do overly encourage that. Some people were homosexual from early childhood and only figure that out later, but some people incorrectly think they've made that discovery because their peer group does things to encourage it. There are social groups were over 50% of people are something other than "man who likes women" or "woman who likes men", and that's a cultural phenomena that's different than people becoming homosexual in early childhood.
My main point is a "pick your battles" message can be applied to sexual deviance. If you don't know how to change something and don't think you have a choice today, OK, fine (especially if it's a recognized thing that many millions of people are supportive of, like homosexuality). But there are lots of pretty optional sexual things that people could and should change or avoid. Plus, pointing out mistakes and problems has value even if they're hard to fix, and even if you have bigger problems to prioritize. I don't want people to struggle to change something, have a bunch of anguish and grief over it, have a rough time, and fail (or even succeed at a huge cost). But I do recommend people view some stuff negatively and avoid it in the first place or make reasonably easy changes to do something else. Aim to make sex not too central to your life or identity, and to not spend your life fighting about it with your society. Try to have a reasonable sex life that satisfies you and isn't a huge distraction from accomplishing other stuff.
Update 2021-07-24: I edited this post to improve it and make it nicer.
Messages (59)
> With the exception of trying to have a kid, it doesn't make sense to have sex contrary to its traditional meaning.
I am confused.
Shouldn't people have sex for fun?
You have written gay porn literature & you are a PUA expert.
don't state personal information about Elliot as facts. you don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't speak for other people. leave Elliot's life out of this.
> don't state personal information about Elliot as facts. you don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't speak for other people. leave Elliot's life out of this.
I only mentioned stuff from public info. I did not reveal anything secret.
BDSM is said to be very pleasurable & relaxing for many. I don't know why people shouldn't do something they find to be fun.
I expect FI to promote freedom (in harmless to others choices) . I know he is not forcing anyone to change but I don't know whether I should be on FI's side on topics like BDSM, animal pain, some parts of climate change, dancing, pro-zionism, jingoism etc..
Stuff I agree with in this post-
1. Life should be about positive values, not about petty squabbling with one's society
2. much like many people are atheists to rebel against our culture
3. I don't know if they also believe BDSM isn't a choice. But who you have sex with, and what your ideas about sex are, actually is a choice.
4. What's really hard to change in life isn't genetics, it's memes. Genetics offer a limited obstacle but don't actively do anything to stop you from changing. Memes aren't set in stone at birth, like your DNA; memes can adapt as you try to change. Static memes also have much more knowledge in them than your genes.
Homosexuality isn't all that hard to change. The reason people find it very hard to change is because they're really, really bad at changing. Plus they generally give up without trying, or don't want to try to change.
Focus only on ideas, don't talk about Elliot.
Always use quote markers (>) for all quotes.
> The "homosexuality is not a choice" crowd are very confused. They say it's genetic. But if it was genetic it'd be easier to change. Hair color is genetic and is changed by dye. Eye color is genetic and can be changed with colored contacts. Having a right arm is genetic, but can be changed with an axe.
So if I say I can change homosexuality by castration, that's makes it easy to change by your definition, right? Therefore it might be genetic?
Not-easy-to-change seems like a weak argument against the possibility of genetic origins of homosexuality. Genetic origins seem plausible as do purely idea-based origins. Is it worth a deeper investigation?
gay genetics
>> The "homosexuality is not a choice" crowd are very confused. They say it's genetic. But if it was genetic it'd be easier to change. Hair color is genetic and is changed by dye. Eye color is genetic and can be changed with colored contacts. Having a right arm is genetic, but can be changed with an axe.
>
> So if I say I can change homosexuality by castration, that's makes it easy to change by your definition, right? Therefore it might be genetic?
>
> Not-easy-to-change seems like a weak argument against the possibility of genetic origins of homosexuality. Genetic origins seem plausible as do purely idea-based origins. Is it worth a deeper investigation?
Genetic origins would make homosexuality easy to change. The knowledge in your genes doesn't change during your life. So if there was a reason to change homosexual preferences you would have a fixed target that would not adapt to your attempts to change it. So the change would be easy. By contrast, if homosexuality is memetic, then the memes can change in a few seconds to adapt to your attempts to change.
*If* homosexuality was (for some people) genetic, it *might* be easy to change for them, given it's more of a fixed target and avoids the challenges with ideas/memes.
But that depends on what the genes do and the complexity behind it, along with the current state of technology. Elliot said "Eye color is genetic and can be changed with colored contacts". That's easy enough with today's technology and actual product(s) on the market for it. But 200 years ago, no one would have called that easy.
the "having genitals" part of sex is genetic, and is indeed pretty easy to change with a knife. so what?
---
in the past people were bad at controlling much of anything, including relatively easy things.
Saying "don't fight your culture on sex" falls under the fallacy of authoritarianism. Individuals should be free to behave according to their own interests and beliefs, regardless of whether these contradict inherited social norms.
Saying that to accept "some premises" of sex norms while rejecting others is "illogical" because the result is necessarily nonsense, is anti-evolutionary. Evolution operates on the basis of incremental change. Without such evolution society's sex ideas cannot improve.
Saying that homosexuality is a choice, is anti-science. It ignores the scientific investigation of genetic and epigenetic factors in sexual orientation.
Saying that homosexuality is "deviant," a "mistake," and a "problem," is also authoritarian. Homosexuality is natural to some ten percent of the population. Of itself, it incurs no harm on others, nor does it violate the non-aggression principle. That a majority of the population prefers other sex behaviors is not a valid argument for eliminating this behavior.
#6337 why are you trying to write a bunch of fancy prestigious words that you don't really understand? you're overreaching. http://fallibleideas.com/lulie/overreach
as one demonstration: some things are bad ideas. pointing this out doesn't contradict freedom. so you're confused.
> the "having genitals" part of sex is genetic, and is indeed pretty easy to change with a knife. so what?
Elliot said the following about homosexuality: "if it was genetic it'd be easier to change". My idea was that it *is* easy to change via castration, which I think would reduce/eliminate sex drive by the removal of sex hormones. Maybe that's not how castration works or how sex hormones work...I'm not super familiar with the details.
Although after thinking about it more, I think my more-to-the-point criticism is that working around a genetic-based issue may or may not be easy (or easier than changing ones ideas) so this doesn't help to address the question as to whether homosexuality is genetic or not.
Genetics are complicated / not well understood yet, and if homosexuality is genetic, whether it is easy to change depends on what the genes actually do and the current state of technology.
There are examples like eye color / hair color with super easy workarounds as Elliot pointed out. But then there are examples of genetic diseases (or even the aging and eventual death caused by inefficiencies encoded in our DNA) with no cure / workaround yet.
I don't know if homosexuality is genetic, or based purely on ideas, or possibly both, or some other factor (the environment in the womb? etc). Seems like an open question that requires more investigation.
if you want to get into technical details: there is no proposed mechanism by which homosexuality could be genetic. no one is able to explain how genes cause homosexuality (the whole chain of X causes Y causes Z and so the person is homosexual). Note I'm not seeking a proven explanation, but merely a proposed one that could be true. Whereas with "homosexuality is ideas", there's no missing explanation, it's easy to see how that could possibly be true.
> #6337 why are you trying to write a bunch of fancy prestigious words that you don't really understand? you're overreaching. http://fallibleideas.com/lulie/overreach
I'm not trying to, but perhaps I am. Interest to understand that better.
> as one demonstration: some things are bad ideas. pointing this out doesn't contradict freedom. so you're confused.
I don't following. What was I pointing out as a bad idea, that doesn't contradict freedom.
I'm also not clear on where the freedom concept comes in. What does that relate to?
By the way, #6339 was me (Anon69), I forgot to mark the author.
> I don't know if homosexuality is genetic, or based purely on ideas, or possibly both, or some other factor (the environment in the womb? etc). Seems like an open question that requires more investigation.
your personal ignorance doesn't make things into open questions.
if you'd like to learn about these topics, a good place to begin is http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html
by begin i mean BEGIN reading it. it may be way too hard. if so just stop and work on your prerequisites. i don't know what you're capable of reading.
> Saying "don't fight your culture on sex" falls under the fallacy of authoritarianism. Individuals should be free to behave according to their own interests and beliefs, regardless of whether these contradict inherited social norms.
> I'm also not clear on where the freedom concept comes in. What does that relate to?
the concept of "freedom" came in when you used the word "free".
you say "people should be free" to do stuff. indeed. so what? what does that have to do with criticizing the stuff? i said it was bad, not that it should be illegal. moral criticism doesn't remove freedom.
> I'm not trying to, but perhaps I am. Interest to understand that better.
if you're really interested i'd expect you would have followed the lead i provided (the link) without being prompted and commented on it, rather than suggesting that, as a next step, you want me to say new stuff about the topic.
Anonymous #6338: "some things are bad ideas. pointing this out doesn't contradict freedom. so you're confused."
This reply misses the point. It is authoritarian to argue "don't fight your culture on sex" without describing what precisely are the culture's views on sex, and why they are justified. The argument implies that whatever the culture's views on sex, they should be accepted simply because they are held by a broad swath of the population. That is authoritarian.
Authoritarian, evolution, science, are not "fancy" words. They are simple and important concepts that anyone can grasp. Everyone should learn these concepts and apply them to their daily life. Trying to mystify them as "fancy" ideas only accessible to certain priest-like thinkers is another blunder to be added to the list already accumulated here.
who is who?
wait hold on. Anon69 and "Real Ultimate Rand" are the same person? i was talking to "Real Ultimate Rand" about freedom, then Anon69 replied like i was talking to him. now "Real Ultimate Rand" is replying again. this is confusing.
> The argument implies that whatever the culture's views on sex, they should be accepted simply because they are held by a broad swath of the population.
no, you just didn't understand the argument. regardless of whose fault that is (communication is hard!), don't make up arguments that weren't in the post and put those words in Elliot's mouth.
to begin with, can you agree the post *did not say that*? where "that" is "they should be accepted simply because they are held by a broad swath of the population".
> the fallacy of authoritarianism
this is a fancy phrase. it's also a mistake. "authoritarianism" is not the name of a known fallacy. the phrase has no clear thing it refers to.
The anonymous poster is not me. My only posts have been #6344 and #6337.
I am happy to stand corrected in changing "fallacy" to "error" or "mistake."
The post did not say explicitly to accept society's sex views because they are widely held. It did however reiterate some standard views (like that homosexuality is "deviant" and a "mistake") -- an idea that is rapidly withering away -- while saying not to fight social sex norms, without making them explicit and justifying them.
I do not want to impute a motivation to the poster. One possibility is that he believes the social sex norms are correct. Another is that he believes in a pick-your-battles approach. Neither is compelling.
First of all, existing norms are varied and in flux, rather than monolithic. The old Christian views, adapted to a certain level of technological and social development, are disintegrating. Reason and liberty are ascendant.
As for pick-your-battles, that would assume the poster actually does not believe in the social sex norms, still undefined, he wants people not to fight against. He would be willingly promoting the continued influence of ideas he thinks are bad.
What is the true argument or motivation? I'm not the one to say. My guess is a desire to combine libertarian thinking with socially conservative Republicanism? Such an attempt is surely doomed.
> The anonymous poster is not me.
ok. he's being confusing then. he posted in a way that made it seem like he was you. lame!
---
homosexuality is deviant – that is, it's both different and looked on negatively by a lot of the mainstream. that's factual.
the point of the post is all the UPSIDE of sex, to the extent it exists, comes from the traditions. without the societal tradition, sex is pretty pointless (besides childbirth).
it doesn't make sense to value sex (due to the tradition) and, and the same time, spit on the tradition.
> My guess is a desire to combine libertarian thinking with socially conservative Republicanism? Such an attempt is surely doomed.
you're mistaken about motivations.
don't impersonate people
looking at this again:
> > #6337 why are you trying to write a bunch of fancy prestigious words that you don't really understand? you're overreaching. http://fallibleideas.com/lulie/overreach
> I'm not trying to, but perhaps I am. Interest to understand that better.
it's directly addressed to #6337 which is by "Real Ultimate Rand". it says "you" speaking to "Real Ultimate Rand".
then Anon69 replies with "I'm" as if he is "Real Ultimate Rand".
what. the. fuck. Fallible Fool is that you? you're the only one i know with a history of impersonating people like this.
The post in #6347 makes more sense to me. "it doesn't make sense to value sex (due to the tradition) and, at the same time, spit on the tradition" is logical. I suggest that the best way forward is to modify traditions around sex so that there are better reasons to value sex due to the tradition. Given the present rapid flux of sex norms this does not seem like it is unreasonable.
As I was apparently mistaken in my guesswork, I am interested to hear the true motivation behind the thought.
> I suggest that the best way forward is to modify traditions around sex so that there are better reasons to value sex due to the tradition
why value sex? if the only reason people value sex is a very fucked up, nasty tradition, why not drop it? and how does changing the tradition to include having sex involving e.g. whips help anything? how does homosexual sex help anything, make life *better*? homosexual sexual relationships have all the same flaws of heterosexual sexual relationships, plus a few added problems (which are, yes, due to society). people may well have much bigger problems, but what's the upside?
the motivation is logic, truth, philosophy, gradualism, that kinda stuff.
there's no real interest here in getting along with the Christian right on this topic. Elliot left the Ann Coulter forum after defending homosexuals there and pissing everyone off. those people are awful, hateful bigots.
we don't like libertarians, either.
#6350 I don't believe the only reason people value sex is due to tradition. That must be part of the reason, but, prima facie another part is because it is inherently enjoyable. That's not to say that some people don't enjoy it, only that many do.
Why not liberate something inherently enjoyable from the shackles of built up social garbage? Moreover, "fighting your culture on sex" is the way to prevent such tragedies as the ultimately fatal persecution of Alan Turing.
"we don't like libertarians, either" -- why not? What then describes the political or philosophical tendency represented here?
>Why not liberate something inherently enjoyable
Check your premises, brother!
Enjoyableness is an interpretation, not an intrinsic attribute of activities.
>> I don't know if homosexuality is genetic, or based purely on ideas, or possibly both, or some other factor (the environment in the womb? etc). Seems like an open question that requires more investigation.
>your personal ignorance doesn't make things into open questions.
Correct. Should I have said, seems like an open question *to me*?
>if you'd like to learn about these topics, a good place to begin is http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html
>by begin i mean BEGIN reading it. it may be way too hard. if so just stop and work on your prerequisites. i don't know what you're capable of reading.
Thanks - I will check it out.
> wait hold on. Anon69 and "Real Ultimate Rand" are the same person? i was talking to "Real Ultimate Rand" about freedom, then Anon69 replied like i was talking to him. now "Real Ultimate Rand" is replying again. this is confusing.
This is my mistake. Anon69 (me) is not "Real Ultimate Rand". I mistakenly replied as to a message referring to #6337.
I'll try to pay closer attention, sorry about that.
#6352 "Enjoyableness is an interpretation, not an intrinsic attribute of activities" -- drinking when thirsty, eating when hungry, urinating when bladder is full, sex, etc. -- all can be interpreted as enjoyable or not enjoyable based on ideas, as you say. You are correct to point that out. However, all also have a physical basis for enjoyability.
Rand denounced enjoyment from the fulfillment of irrational wishes. However, there is nothing irrational about satisfaction of physical wants and needs, so long as they do not violate the non-aggression principle. Such wants and needs are products of evolution.
Rand described sex as a matter of self-esteem and self-exaltation. She refused to dismiss it as simply an animal urge. Wanting to ensure that tradition and values promote the rational enjoyment of sex logically follows. Given that social sex norms currently fail at this, it further follows that one should in fact "fight their culture on sex."
> if you want to get into technical details: there is no proposed mechanism by which homosexuality could be genetic. no one is able to explain how genes cause homosexuality (the whole chain of X causes Y causes Z and so the person is homosexual). Note I'm not seeking a proven explanation, but merely a proposed one that could be true. Whereas with "homosexuality is ideas", there's no missing explanation, it's easy to see how that could possibly be true.
If the "homosexuality is ideas" theory has no criticisms then it's good to proceed as if it's true.
I haven't spent much time yet looking at the current state of theories on the genetic / non-choice front. I can do so and see if I arrive at the same conclusion that no good explanations there.
I briefly googled and found http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451. I haven't read it yet but simply offering in case anyone wants to review.
we disagree with Rand on sex.
sex does release some drugs in your body (that is a "physical basis for enjoyability"). taking cocaine also puts drugs into your body. why prefer sex? just because it's natural instead of artificial? and why pursue either one instead of better things? (answer for why people pursue sex: because our society has ideas which say sex is important.)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451.
ok lets review the abstract
> Abstract
> Background Findings from family and twin studies support a genetic contribution to the development of sexual orientation in men. However, previous studies have yielded conflicting evidence for linkage to chromosome Xq28.
> Method We conducted a genome-wide linkage scan on 409 independent pairs of homosexual brothers (908 analyzed individuals in 384 families), by far the largest study of its kind to date.
> Results We identified two regions of linkage: the pericentromeric region on chromosome 8 (maximum two-point LOD = 4.08, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.59), which overlaps with the second strongest region from a previous separate linkage scan of 155 brother pairs; and Xq28 (maximum two-point LOD = 2.99, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.76), which was also implicated in prior research.
> Conclusions Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.
by "genetic contribution" they mean correlation. it's a technical term. it has nothing to do with what any normal person would think a "genetic contribution" means. (what normal people would think it means is the gene is (partly) causing something)
by "linkage" they again mean correlation.
their method is having a computer search for correlations.
the result is by having computers search through tons of data, they found some correlations.
the conclusion is they claim "influence" when they only found correlation. that's deeply dishonest, and very typical.
***correlation is not causation***. these kinds of academics are some mix of grossly incompetent, dishonest, and misreported by the media (sometimes stuff gets lost in translation and exaggerated when presented to the public. that's no excuse here though since we directly looked at an academic paper).
Real Ultimate Rand wrote:
> "we don't like libertarians, either" -- why not? What then describes the political or philosophical tendency represented here?
how familiar are you with Rand? she trashed the hell out of libertarians. we agree with her on that!
> Moreover, "fighting your culture on sex" is the way to prevent such tragedies as the ultimately fatal persecution of Alan Turing.
promoting better laws that allow greater freedom doesn't require fighting your culture on sex. you don't have to defend the wisdom or morality of homosexuality in order to advocate the repeal of all victimless crime laws.
> the conclusion is they claim "influence" when they only found correlation. that's deeply dishonest, and very typical.
> ***correlation is not causation***. these kinds of academics are some mix of grossly incompetent, dishonest, and misreported by the media.
That makes sense. Aside from the issues you mentioned, is the correlation interesting anyways? Worth further exploration / experiments?
I also stumbled across this article which talks about some other research / ideas on the subject: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna. Interested in analysis by anyone who cares to offer.
I AM NOT THAT PERSON !!! WTF..
I AM FOLLOWING RULES EVEN IF I DON'T HAVE TO BUT I STILL GET FUCKING BLAMED..
I AM NOT CAPABLE OF WRITING SUCH SENTENCES!!
> is the correlation interesting anyways? Worth further exploration / experiments?
no. if you look through a lot of data for any patterns, you'll usually find some. and there's way more meaningless patterns to find than important useful ones. (correlations are patterns.)
(not that any patterns are inherently important or useful. but some can help with problems some humans are currently working on)
FYI don't put a period or anything else after a link without a space first or the link won't work.
regarding the article, these people aren't philosophers and don't even know what would constitute a productive contribution to the topic. they're wasting their careers.
I HAVE NO REASON TO IMPERSONATE ANYONE.. ELLIOT/FI HAS BEEN REPLYING TO MY QUESTIONS.. I AM SIGNING MY EVERY QUESTION!!!!!!!
ANYONE WHO IMPERSONATED.. COME FORWARD... !!!!!!
FF, don't get mad. it was just a question. jeez. if you're going to yell at people, or get angry at any of us, you won't remain welcome here much longer.
> FF, don't get mad. it was just a question. jeez. if you're going to yell at people, or get angry at any of us, you won't remain welcome here much longer.
I wanted it to be seen clearly and quickly..
I am following rules because it is a win/win.. Trolling is a waste of time. I want to learn here.
I am trying to remove the trolling reputation here. But if someone trolls here and you keep blaming me I have to change my alias from FF to something else.
FF, you're pretty stupid to respond to this situation by threatening to violate the rules and use force against Elliot.
> FF, you're pretty stupid to respond to this situation by threatening to violate the rules and use force against Elliot.
Stupid how?
I am stating what I think.
I don't like being blamed for something I didn't do.
I have to state why I am following the rules and when I might not want follow the rules. I have to clear about this.
Let's say I was learning here peacefully without causing any problems but I still get banned. Should I respect the rules even then?!! I don't think so.
I hope Elliot reads IP data instead of blaming me and crucifying me.
Was he the one doing that? #6354
#6359: I am aware that Rand never supported the libertarian party. At that time the party was an ideological mish-mash. Rand was right to call them "the hippies of the right." They did things like protest nuclear power.
However, since then the libertarian party has increasingly clarified itself politically. LP theoreticians such as Murray Rothbard made important contributions to anti-statist capitalist thought. Today, there is no question that the LP is the only political party remotely close to anti-statist capitalist values. I would be interested to hear why the people here do not support them.
#6357: I agree that Rand's view of sex touched on the fantastical. It seems that Rand had not fully freed herself of certain harmful, socially conventional ideas about sex and romance.
You analogize sex to drugs, but there is one important difference. You only crave meth if you make the mistake of starting to take it. On the other hand, your organism automatically wants food, drink, etc. and usually sex. Unless you satisfy the desire, you will suffer a penalty. Therefore sex is in a different class than drugs.
The LP today does not impress me. For example, Gary Johnson is awful. He calls Hillary wonderful and says BLM has a good point.
Rothbard is an anti-semite with many really bad ideas. Like he says a fetus is a trespasser and this justifies the death penalty (abortion), even if that fetus is a human being. He also wrote a nasty attack on Rand.
also, as Rand talked about, we need more philosophical education before we can elect, e.g., Objectivists. and a political party isn't how you do an educational effort. so we don't need and shouldn't have a political party at this time.
> I agree that Rand's view of sex touched on the fantastical.
i do not agree about "fantastical".
> It seems that Rand had not fully freed herself of certain harmful, socially conventional ideas about sex and romance.
i can agree with this. but it sounds kinda mundane/normal to me, not fantastical.
> You analogize sex to drugs, but there is one important difference. You only crave meth if you make the mistake of starting to take it. On the other hand, your organism automatically wants food, drink, etc. and usually sex. Unless you satisfy the desire, you will suffer a penalty. Therefore sex is in a different class than drugs.
if that were true, and that's really all it was about, then just masturbate. way more convenient than sex.
> For example, Gary Johnson is awful. He calls Hillary wonderful and says BLM has a good point.
Shouldn't you focus on his policies instead of focusing on his statements?
When it comes to Donald Trump you only focus on his policies and ignore the stupid stuff he says.
whatever policies are born of viewing Hillary positively are gonna suck.
whatever pro-BLM policies he comes up with are gonna suck.
if Trump makes a stupid policy-relevant statement, e.g. if he said he likes ISIS, of course that would matter too.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
here's some bad ones:
> Visited Occupy Wall Street; we need radical surgery. (Feb 2012)
oh dear
> Alternative energy good; ethanol subsidies bad. (Nov 2011)
> I accept global warming but not cap-and-trade. (Jun 2011)
> Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically. (Aug 2000)
> Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries. (Aug 2000)
> Federal tax incentives for energy, with state decisions. (Aug 2001)
so he's pretty crap on environmentalism and energy stuff.
> Federal funds & state involvement in fatherhood initiatives. (Aug 2001)
government spending money on fatherhood policy? wtf kinda libertarian is this guy!?
> Flights to Cuba ok; trade promotes friendship. (Sep 2011)
pro cuba!? ugh...
> Torture has created millions of enemies we wouldn't have had. (Aug 2012)
nonsense
> 43% reduction in military spending; cut foreign aid too. (Sep 2011)
slash the hell out of our military? very dangerous
> Bigger border fence will only produce taller ladders. (Jan 2016)
fuck this clown
(didn't mean to post that yet. wasn't done)
> Cut all support and aid to Israel. (May 2012)
fuck him.
> Iran is not currently a military threat. (Aug 2011)
fuck him
> I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. (May 2011)
bad. (shared by Trump, i know.) better than Hillary at least who voted for the Iraq war, then changed her mind a few months later and sabotaged the war effort after it started :(
https://www.johnsonweld.com/environment
> The environment is a precious gift and must be protected. Governors Johnson and Weld believe strongly that the first responsibility of government is to protect citizens from those who would do them harm, whether it be a foreign aggressor, a criminal — or a bad actor who harms the environment upon which we all depend.
sounds kinda like a hippie of the right! except he's pretty lefty.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/immigration
> Gary Johnson and Bill Weld don’t want to build an expensive and useless wall. The only thing a big wall will do is increase the size of the ladders, the depth of the tunnels, and the width of the divisions between us.
he doesn't want to enforce US law.
---
there's plenty more bad things. but he doesn't even matter, so i'm done.
>> Cut all support and aid to Israel. (May 2012)
> fuck him.
Israel is very powerful. Why should US Govt waste tax dollars on them?
Donald Trump may ask Israel to pay too.. He is going to ask South Korea to pay for support.
Do you have any war which you are against?
You are supposed to be only self-defense.. But you seem to like wasting money on wars.. Should US be an Empire or a colonist?
What limits have you set? Where do you draw the line?
> whatever policies are born of viewing Hillary positively are gonna suck.
Donald Trump hates Hillary just because she is his opponent in the race.. He loved her a lot before.
> if Trump makes a stupid policy-relevant statement, e.g. if he said he likes ISIS, of course that would matter too.
He like Russia and forwards quotes from dictators. If we dig we can find a lot of evil stuff he likes.
His policy is to bankrupt US and make a deal.. Is that a good Policy? You are anti-risk right?
> slash the hell out of our military? very dangerous
Is the full military force needed at all times?
Saving money is supposed to be good.. Less taxes!!
#6370 re: "fantastical" the other word that struck me was "mystical." Basically, ascribing massive almost supernatural significance and meaning to sex, which is a simple biological act.
Re: LP -- I can see not supporting the LP in light of Gary Johnson. Johnson and Weld are long-time operators within the governmental apparatus, clearly not anti-statist. Their push to re-brand the LP as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" but otherwise basically like any other party negates the most important aspect of the LP.
It is a deadly mistake however to then turn to the Republican Party, who are big-time statists. It is like choosing not to eat a food you don't like and then instead having something that's poison. The Republican Party is a graveyard of liberty.
Libertarian thinkers who get sucked in to the RP objectively become anti-liberty, anti-capitalist, and pro-state. They may subjectively remain pro-capitalist and pro-liberty, but that only means they have to come up with contorted philosophical arguments to reconcile their circumstances. Not a good stand point for philosophical education.
I would advise the readers of this site not to fall into this trap. Otherwise, you will end up as useless as the rest of the moths drawn into that candle.
> Libertarian thinkers who get sucked in to the RP objectively become anti-liberty, anti-capitalist, and pro-state. They may subjectively remain pro-capitalist and pro-liberty, but that only means they have to come up with contorted philosophical arguments to reconcile their circumstances. Not a good stand point for philosophical education.
You are 1000% right.
> It is a deadly mistake however to then turn to the Republican Party
Hillary is a corrupt, criminal traitor. She's anti-American. Trump is the one man who can prevent her from being President. He likes America. Who to vote for here is simple for all decent Americans.
> sex, which is a simple biological act.
sex is a complex, cultural act.
#6379: Hillary and Trump are both corrupt, and both love to use state coercion. Trump openly brags about how he worked the political system for profit, essentially bribing politicians to use government compulsion for the advantage of his businesses. Hillary isn't open about it but it's obvious with her.
Both of them have been in both of the major parties. Trump was a Democrat and Hillary was a Republican. Neither of them stands for any principle besides their own advancement and power. They are both terrible options.
As a result of your departure from principle to support one version of statism over another, you end up using criteria like "likes America." That isn't a theoretically sound criterion. It is vague (what does "America" mean?) and doesn't relate well to policy or philosophy. Thus the "philosophical education" you seek to carry out becomes hopelessly muddled.
(And in point of fact I'd wager that Hillary does in fact "like America" -- who wouldn't like the country that your husband led for 8 years, that made you incredibly wealthy, powerful, and famous, and of which you yourself will likely be the next leader.)
In your post, you don't present Trump in a positive light (because, how could you?) but rather as a means to the end of defeating Clinton. But this contradicts Rand's strong statement about means and ends: "...I reject the filthy slogan 'The ends justifies the means.' That was originated by the Jesuits and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The ends does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means." You should consider this wisdom of Rand's carefully. Even in a tactical, so-called pragmatic sense, nothing good can come of using one vile statist to combat another.
Rand framed the key political battle of our time as freedom versus statism (capitalism being an expression of freedom). By choosing one statist over another (or put another way, one socialist over another), you end up on the wrong side of the barricades in the key political battle. Thus you example what I said of becoming objectively anti-liberty, anti-capitalist, and pro-state.
> #6391
I completely agree..
> Trump openly brags about how he worked the political system for profit
he doesn't brag about it. he says it's broken. you aren't presenting things fairly.
Trump has many good policies, like: building a wall, restricting third world, Muslim and illegal immigration, defeating ISIS, opposing Iran, naming and defeating radical Islam, lowering taxes, drilling for oil and lots of really great energy policies, getting rid of obamacare. trump is pro-police and pro-law-and-order. trump says he'll appoint constitutionalist judges. these policies are far and away better than hillary.
your inability to differentiate on issues like "wants to arm Iran with nuclear weapons" and "wants to be tough on Iran, increase sanctions, don't give them money or weapons" is pretty messed up.
>> is the correlation interesting anyways? Worth further exploration / experiments?
>no. if you look through a lot of data for any patterns, you'll usually find some. and there's way more meaningless patterns to find than important useful ones. (correlations are patterns.)
If the experiment found no correlations, would that be a criticism or falsification of the idea that homosexuality is effected by genetics? Or would that be equally meaningless?
> (not that any patterns are inherently important or useful. but some can help with problems some humans are currently working on)
What's an example of patterns helping with problems?
>FYI don't put a period or anything else after a link without a space first or the link won't work.
Got it.
one experiment finding no patterns would be pretty meaningless. if lots couldn't find patterns, which their side expected to find, then that's a problem for them. they'd have to take some kinda stance on how they explain it. there are lots of stances they could take to address it. but their chosen stance(s) would then be open to criticism! in the following debate, they might find their stance hard to defend. they might try several stances and find all of them run into problematic criticism. or they might come up with something that works well. it's hard to predict the content of discussions that haven't taken place.
noticing the pattern of MUSLIM terrorism could help with airport security policies.