well said.

I meant "philosophical in the realm of honesty".

Existing words change over time. "Pitiful" now
means "deserving of pity"; there was a time when
it mean "capable of or susceptible to feeling pity";
"Momentarily" properly means "lasting for a mo-
ment"; now it is used (probably by people who like to flaunt their polysyllabic vocabulary rather
than pay attention to verbal precision, and like to
hear themselves talk) to mean "soon" or "after a
moment"; most likely this will continue until
usage will just make the word have both mean-
ings, or the older one will be replaced by the
newer one.
The "philosophical problem" to which I re-
ferred could come from intellectual laziness;
then again, it could be downright intellectual
dishonesty.

If one is to argue in favor of the utility of a thing in society, one must argue how it furthers the individual, would you agree? In the case of marriage, however, one must consider those brought up in the care of that arrangement and their individual benefit in addition to the consideration of the parties involved.

When I used the word inherent, it was in reference to the conclusion that the very nature of the relationship pointed to an efficacy of outcome. It is the undeniable association of choice and consequence. The consequence is inherent in the choice and the consequence has certain value or virtue. Therefore I see it as no mean stretch or logical fallacy to associate inherent value with certain choices. Rand's argument here is that some argue a course of action regardless of the outcome. I propose no such thing.


"This “intrinsic” theory of the good is often used to justify “society’s” right to define “virtue”"

Society does not have the capacity or power to define reality (assign choice and consequence). All it can do is choose to recognize and adopt reality - or not. And since neither you nor I have any power to define reality neither can we delegate such power to a governmental entity.


"it is sufficient to point out that such activity does not fall within the domain of the proper function of government, which is to protect individual rights."

First, I fail to see an abridgment of rights. Your rights to believe as you choose are not being infringed by a monument recognizing the ideals (and theoretical primary source for those ideals) adopted by government. Until the government starts pushing a specific religious sect, they are only acting on ideals and principles! What you are arguing is that you disagree not with the principles themselves but rather the claims involving how the principles were derived! Good grief! [shakes head] There is no way to resolve that dilemma without the total destruction of one side or the other. Are you in favor of such a course of action?


"it is not the government’s place to promote any religious “ideals”, implicitly or explicitly."

But for the government to promote anti-religious ideals is somehow okay? Again, you're devolving into a position advocating the adoption of atheism as the established religion of the United States. You're focusing again on how the ideals came to be (purportedly) - not the ideals themselves!

And actually, it is the government's place to not only promote, but enforce ideals. That is government's purpose. We have a legislative that identifies and forms laws around ideals, an executive which enforces those ideals, and a judiciary which adjudicates based on the violation (or innocence) of those ideals. To claim otherwise is to take the stance of anarchy - that no government is lawful.


" Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the “ideals” of a religion that worships Satan, or perhaps of one that promotes racism or cannibalism?"

We wouldn't have to worry about the Constitution being around if these principles actually underpinned the government, now would we?

“Inherent values or virtues”?? Ayn Rand wanted nothing to do with that concept, which she labeled the “intrinsic” theory of the good. She said, “The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.” –Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

This “intrinsic” theory of the good is often used to justify “society’s” right to define “virtue” and to legislate accordingly. It is totally incompatible with a philosophy such as Objectivism that upholds individual rights.

As to the 10 Commandments monument, it is not the government’s place to promote any religious “ideals”, implicitly or explicitly. When governments do so, it is not necessary to prove harm, it is sufficient to point out that such activity does not fall within the domain of the proper function of government, which is to protect individual rights. Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the “ideals” of a religion that worships Satan, or perhaps of one that promotes racism or cannibalism?

EVERYONE has their take on the First Amendment. You make it out as if Cruz is the only one. That's just simply false and that's why I posted what I did in the note previous.

" then ask themselves whether Cruz would be willing to uphold the Constitution"

Show me an instance where Cruz has subverted the original intent of the Constitution to forward his personal religious views and mandate their adoption by everyone (i.e. an establishment of religion) and you can make a case. Without that, it is pure speculation and innuendo. I don't need to ask myself if a candidate would do something. I look at what they have actually done in the past.

If you're bound and determined to make Cruz into a religious zealot intent on forcibly converting every American to his flavor of Christianity, you are welcome to entertain such ideas, but I see nothing from his positional statements or his historical actions to justify such a conclusion. You're welcome to dislike the man and refuse to vote for him because he holds religious views. I don't. I look at his history of defending what I consider to be the original intent of the Founders of the Constitution as being honorable and exactly the kind of President I am looking for. I look at the other three candidates and see imperialists: those who would use their power not to defend the Constitution - the primary responsibility of the President of the United States I might add - but to further their own agendas by whatever means they thought they could get away with.

You point to Cruz' site, but what I see there are a whole bunch of issues where the Federal Government has been trying to tell everyone else what they can or should believe. That is an establishment of religion and nothing short of it.

Any overt injection of Cruz’s religious views into his campaign for president would doom his candidacy. But his website gives big hints about how his religious views color his interpretation of the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. Anyone considering supporting Ted Cruz should read the “religious liberty” page of his webpage, then ask themselves whether Cruz would be willing to uphold the Constitution whenever it conflicts with his religious views.
https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/religi...

"It’s not necessary to assume “equality between the unions,” only that both straight and gay couples have equality of rights to form such unions."

That's not the issue at all. The issue is about the recognition of those units within society - either socially or legally. And in those respects, their comparative virtues matter greatly.

"And where is there anything in Objectivist philosophy that says governments have the right to determine which unions are more “virtuous” than others and legislate accordingly?"

Reality is all about seeing a thing for what it is. It is also about choices between different things based on their inherent values or virtues. I would think that Objectivism rather argues against your point of view - not for it.

"rather than resorting to name-calling when people object to having their tax money spent on erecting and maintaining a monument on public land promoting the dogma of a particular religious creed."

And which particular religious creed is being represented? And where? That is key. Establishment of religion has to be the government actively promoting a particular religion - not merely the ideals. The other issue is that of harm - what harm are such representations to you? Do you feel that somehow they proscribe what belief set you or anyone else must adhere to? Or that they designate some proscription upon those in government to favor one belief set over another? That is what I just don't see happening.

If your complaint is that there are no Presidential candidates who are Objectivists, you are correct. And I don't see that changing in the near future. We have what we have.

As I examine the existing candidates, however, this is what I see:

We have two candidates who are in bed with the media and yet seek to put the screws on them.

Then we have another candidate who has said that he favors altering the protections of the First Amendment so he can prosecute or sue those who disparage him. I'm really not a big fan of an elected representative being able to sue or prosecute those who disagree with him (or her). That sounds to me like imperialism and I'm not going there.

The last candidate is one who is not ashamed to be religious, but of whom I have yet to find a single example of where he has advanced that religious view in the public arena.

Pretty cut and dried if you ask me.

Very well said, it is a frequent occurrence childish tunnel vision ,the end justifying the means the myopic altruism ment to destroy the once greatest country on the planet.

We can agree that Rand's ideas on Capitalism, Individualism and the mind are very powerful. There are other aspects to her views which I do not agree with.

Thank you for your carefully worded response.

Could not agree more!

The people here who are anti god would also have a problem with Mike Lee.

It’s not necessary to assume “equality between the unions,” only that both straight and gay couples have equality of rights to form such unions. And where is there anything in Objectivist philosophy that says governments have the right to determine which unions are more “virtuous” than others and legislate accordingly?

Maturity means being able to disagree with someone rationally and reasonably, rather than resorting to name-calling when people object to having their tax money spent on erecting and maintaining a monument on public land promoting the dogma of a particular religious creed.

That's because, just like the work of Jaynes and many others was thought to be strange.
Perhaps.."human" Humanoid" in relation to conscience/consciousness and the "Humans as a species" needs different designations.

I'm not a relative of the revolting Mr. Dahmer, as far as I know! And my questions about "if some people aren't human, may humans eat them?" were purely in order to test the logical consequences of the position that "some people aren't human" — a position which I don't hold, particularly in the light of your most recent (and, to me, extraordinarily unconvincing) message.

Well...my research goes a bit further in that direction than Jaynes and it has to do with how consciousness allowed us to connect to the mind directly; (an electromagnetic field outside our heads which is actually part of the ether) I suppose that the connection is the subconscious and all toll it gives one a conscience. This would be the 3rd part of the Conscious Human Equation. So yes...we were like humanoids...but remember, it was mankind that had the potential for and were moving toward self awareness...I see no self awareness or conscience in Nimrod ( his stature and linage was different than ours (nephilim) or a majority of rulers throughout time
pt 1 brain. pt 2 body...at this point you are humanoid...(like an android)...pt 3 would be the conscious mind which would seem to give one a definitive identity...
It's a work in progress.

About your observed obsession with eating humanoids I have to ask: was Jeffery Domer a relative?...hahahahahahah

"This changes much of what you suggest." No, it doesn't. You are implying that the underlying motivation is monetary. What if it's just control? Either way, there are real ties to organized religion. I'm just kind of jabbing at the logic - no offense. I love several Mormons in my life, too. Named my son after one I grew up with. All who I know are really good folks.

To my personal knowledge, some Jews and a few Catholics — not to mention a number of Muslims and Buddhists and Wiccans and others — have been involved in some of these suits too, and have had their names on some of them.

I've read Jaynes. If the human race was ever in the state that he describes, would you argue that (at that time) the human race was not yet human? (As I recall, he argues that all of humanity was in this state within early historical times: e.g., throughout the early centuries of ancient civilizations such as the Sumerian.)

Hmmm ... if some people look human but really aren't — and if you WERE joking about them having been genetically modified into non-humanness long, long ago — then presumably there WOULD be nothing wrong with serving them for dinner, and an Objectivist butcher shop could legitimately offer steaks, chops, and ribs from these-things-that-look-entirely-human-but-aren't ... ?

I hadn't heard that. The names on the lawsuits are predominantly sponsored by the "Freedom from Religion" foundation - an atheist group.

If elected, will he swear on the Bible to uphold the Constitution ... or will he swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible?

Actually, Jews and sometimes Catholics get worked up over that issue, too. Why is that? One of the several reasons is that Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism differ on the precise contents and wording of the Ten Commandments — and courthouse Commandments displays always use the Protestant set.

"But if there are, public officials have no right to discriminate"

The first fallacy in the whole "gay marriage" debate is that there is an equality between the unions. There isn't. A union of a man and a woman is different from the union between a man and a man and neither of those is equivalent to the union of a woman and a woman. We can even extend that to a union between one man and multiple women, one woman and multiple men, a woman and a horse, a man and a pig, a man and a dead body, or any number of others. Discrimination is treating something different differently because it is inherently different. It is not only logically consistent but logically mandatory to recognize when things are different and act accordingly rather than attempt to deny the reality of the situation. We give each of these situations a different name: in order marriage, homosexuality, lesbianism, polygamy (or just sleeping around), polyamory (prostitution or sleeping around), bestiality, bestiality (again), necrophilia, etc. Why? Because they are separate and distinct relationships based on who (or what) is participating.

The second fallacy is one you have already agreed with me on: that marriage licenses shouldn't exist in the first place.

The third is based on the first: that the State (or its representatives) must recognize any or all of these as having equal virtue in society. Sociologists have long verified that the most stable and most productive children come from a home in which their biological parents are their caretakers, and are completely loyal to each other and their offspring. It isn't religious, it's simply fact. To argue that any relationship other than traditional marriage holds the same virtue is specifically rejected by the studies on the matter. Criminal justice studies have long cited that the single most common factor among the incarcerated is the lack of a father in the home - not race. It just so happens that the black community has the highest incidences of out-of-wedlock childbirth and the incidence rate of young blacks growing up without a father is much higher than in Asian, Caucasian, and Latino cultures. Facts.

I must conclude, therefore that I am a fool not to recognize and act on the distinctions and relative values involved in these relationships. I am in fact denying the reality before me - not embracing it.

--

A great man once said that a man who chooses to take offense when none was intended is a fool and that a man who chooses to take offense when it is intended is an even greater fool. Why? Because they allow that other person to manipulate and control them.

If someone chooses to get offended and up in arms about a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of a State Capitol, they are being childish. I make no apologies for such a statement. Maturity means being able to disagree with someone rationally and reasonably. Childishness is not being able to think of any point of view but one's own. The only people who get worked up over this issue are atheists. Not Buddhists, Wiccans, Rastafarians, or anyone else. Only atheists. Why is that?

XR:
I learned the most about LDS when I lived in San Diego and they built a beautiful cathedral just a few blocks away from my condo. They had, as I recall, a 1 or 2 day open house on its completion and I spoke to several of the young men who were acting as guides or docents.
I found that LDS had much more integrity and honesty than most religions that I'm familiar with. I won't insult you by pointing out what makes me shun all religions, including yours. My various contributions to the Gulch make these quite clear. I am amazed at how many persons contribute to the Gulch who are religious. I keep encountering them, much to my surprise. I guess that Rand's ideas are so powerful that people are attracted to them in spite of their religious beliefs.

I agree that there should not be government marriage licenses in the first place. But if there are, public officials have no right to discriminate as to which couples they issue those licenses to. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection of religious liberty and other individual rights to the state and local level, superseding the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in this regard. And calling opponents of your point of view “childish” doesn’t really help your argument – rights are rights.