Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

A challenge to bossyburrito

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 2:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bossyburrito maintains that because man has free will, he can - through introspection alone- determine which gender (if any) he feels physically attracted to. However, this reasoning contradicts with some of Rand's statements.

"The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man"s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

The pleasure-pain mechanism in the body of man"and in the bodies of all the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousness"serves as an automatic guardian of the organism"s life. The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action. "

If man had free will in the sense bossyburrito insists we possess, then man could choose what makes him happy by changing his values. Rand contends that this is out of the question. Man's nature determines what will make him happy - so why can't his nature determine which gender he feels sexually attracted to?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:01:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 2:50:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossyburrito maintains that because man has free will, he can - through introspection alone- determine which gender (if any) he feels physically attracted to. However, this reasoning contradicts with some of Rand's statements.

"The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man"s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

The pleasure-pain mechanism in the body of man"and in the bodies of all the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousness"serves as an automatic guardian of the organism"s life. The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action. "

If man had free will in the sense bossyburrito insists we possess, then man could choose what makes him happy by changing his values. Rand contends that this is out of the question. Man's nature determines what will make him happy - so why can't his nature determine which gender he feels sexually attracted to?

Pleasure =/= values or attraction.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:03:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:01:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/26/2015 2:50:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossyburrito maintains that because man has free will, he can - through introspection alone- determine which gender (if any) he feels physically attracted to. However, this reasoning contradicts with some of Rand's statements.

"The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man"s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

The pleasure-pain mechanism in the body of man"and in the bodies of all the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousness"serves as an automatic guardian of the organism"s life. The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action. "

If man had free will in the sense bossyburrito insists we possess, then man could choose what makes him happy by changing his values. Rand contends that this is out of the question. Man's nature determines what will make him happy - so why can't his nature determine which gender he feels sexually attracted to?

Pleasure =/= values or attraction.

Pleasure and sexual attraction are quite similar. I don't see how they are fundamentally different.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:03:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:03:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:01:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/26/2015 2:50:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossyburrito maintains that because man has free will, he can - through introspection alone- determine which gender (if any) he feels physically attracted to. However, this reasoning contradicts with some of Rand's statements.

"The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man"s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

The pleasure-pain mechanism in the body of man"and in the bodies of all the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousness"serves as an automatic guardian of the organism"s life. The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action. "

If man had free will in the sense bossyburrito insists we possess, then man could choose what makes him happy by changing his values. Rand contends that this is out of the question. Man's nature determines what will make him happy - so why can't his nature determine which gender he feels sexually attracted to?

Pleasure =/= values or attraction.

Pleasure and sexual attraction are quite similar. I don't see how they are fundamentally different.

Define your terms.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:12:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:03:40 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:03:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:01:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/26/2015 2:50:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossyburrito maintains that because man has free will, he can - through introspection alone- determine which gender (if any) he feels physically attracted to. However, this reasoning contradicts with some of Rand's statements.

"The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man"s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

The pleasure-pain mechanism in the body of man"and in the bodies of all the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousness"serves as an automatic guardian of the organism"s life. The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action. "

If man had free will in the sense bossyburrito insists we possess, then man could choose what makes him happy by changing his values. Rand contends that this is out of the question. Man's nature determines what will make him happy - so why can't his nature determine which gender he feels sexually attracted to?

Pleasure =/= values or attraction.

Pleasure and sexual attraction are quite similar. I don't see how they are fundamentally different.

Define your terms.

IMHO, sexual attraction is a kind of pleasure - you can find someone sexually attractive without loving them. Ayn Rand agreed with me, btw.

So according to Objectivism, sex is potentially moral, but what about homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]). Apparently, she thought that heterosexuality was a universal fact of human nature. "The essence of femininity," she wrote, "is hero worship" (Ayn Rand, "About a Woman President," in The Voice of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff [New York: Penguin, 1989], 268), the worship of men as producers. It is human nature, she believed, for a woman of self-esteem to want to be ruled, in sexual matters, by a man worthy of ruling her, and for a man of self-esteem to want to rule, in sexual matters, a woman worthy of being ruled. To Rand, the "unfortunate premises" that lead to homosexuality are, presumably, premises that contradict this view of sex roles. (For further discussion and debate on Rand's views on sex, see Mimi Gladstein and Chris Sciabarra, eds., Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand [University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999].)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:13:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
While sexual orientations may not be chosen, in many cases, what behaviors people exhibit in response to their orientations are chosen, and such behaviors can be evaluated morally. A person who by nature, rather than by choice, is more attracted to members of the same sex than the opposite sex still has the choice to recognize and act in accordance with this fact or to repress or act against it. If a person wishes to achieve happiness and promote his life, then he must, in a realm as morally important as sex, act in accordance with his nature. For example, it is morally right for a woman whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a woman she loves and desires. In contrast, it is morally wrong for a man whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a man rather than seeking out a woman. So there are contexts in which homosexual behavior is immoral (just as there are contexts in which heterosexual behavior is immoral), but there is nothing immoral about homosexuality per se.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent that it is a matter of choice. Scientific evidence shows that, in many cases, people don't choose their sexual orientations"it is in their natures to prefer sexual relations with members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. On the other hand, people can choose whether to act in accordance with their natures, and since sex is essential to man's life and happiness, this is a moral issue. It is morally right for people to act in accordance with their natures, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in-between.

^ said by Objectivist people
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:30:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"I cannot conceive of a rational woman who does not want to be precisely an instrument of her husband's selfish enjoyment...Actually, this is too evil to discuss much further."

lol
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:38:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:37:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:01:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Wanna debate "The Objectivist account of free will is nonsense."
??

Yes!
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:40:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:38:24 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:37:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:01:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Wanna debate "The Objectivist account of free will is nonsense."
??

Yes!

K. Let's finish our current debate first though.