Even if you cannot be objectivist and religious, I completely accept religion to the extent it doesn't make scientifically falsifiable claims or try to guilt people into taking actions.

Naturally I am looking at it from a 2015 perspective, because that is my perspective. However, truth is timeless and not cultural. I think much in Jesus' teachings is timeless and true, and some of it contradicts the Old Testament. The writings of Paul (which you quoted above) are included in the New Testament, but he wasn't Jesus and I'm not convinced he speaks for Jesus in those passages. I'd contend that he is expressing his own opinions and agenda in Romans and Corinthians.

I hope those who commented here will turn their attention to a new post of mine: "It's Earlier than You Think"--one of Ayn's Rands most clever titles and an essay that changed a generation of Objectivists? Are we at risk of being on"high alert" for some long we cease to believe int he danger of fascism? Please let me know what you think; I don't have an answer...

I did decide not to be gay. Are you the thought police? Only I know what goes on inside my mind. There was no realization, it was a decision.

The most current theories, to the best of my knowledge, are that there is probably not a "gay gene." I put that in scare quotes because there are traits that are purely genetic and those that have a genetic component, sometimes a very strong genetic component. For instance, eye color is purely genetic. But susceptibility to cancer or other diseases is strongly influenced by genetics even though your DNA alone won't cause cancer or many other diseases or conditions.

A woman I work with lost her mother, sister and some other blood relatives to fast moving breast cancer. Her DNA carried the same marker that indicated an extreme likelihood that she would develop the same breast cancer. She opted for preventative removal of all breast tissue and a hysterectomy as well. Does she have a cancer gene?

What level of genetic involvement in trait X would justify us calling that the "X gene?"

I havn't see the movie yet but I like WD's article in The Savvy Street which I read as saying-
being homosexual is ok but that should not alone give hero status,
that he was picked on for crimes on trumped up or no evidence, that he died because of it, by cyanide but whether suicide or poisoning is still uncertain.
There is another angle worth mentioning hinted at by WD, it seems that Turing was 'normal'.
The film however follows a long tradition of having brilliance especially in science and mathematics shown as eccentric. The recent example of Atlas Shrugged part 3 in casting John Galt may even be a reaction in going the other way - The scientific genius Galt is shown as very personable and physical.

(Apologies for returning to the topic, slanging off and meanderings may resume)

I have been told that Rand was, essentially, anti-homosexual, but I never sought out the proof. I was busy enough learning about Objectivism to seek out information about its creator that seemed irrelevant to the philosophy.

Branden's quote saying that Rand was ignorant about homosexuality is an important point, to me. Ignorance can be cured by education. Rand valued reason above all. Had she lived long enough I believe that her attitude would have changed. Brandon also observed that her perspective on gayness hurt people who looked up to her. If I had encountered her opinions about homosexuality early in my learning about Objectivism I would probably have felt hurt and I might have abandoned further learning. Now, however, I can look at it more objectively and say that, 1) she didn't have the opportunity to learn other wise and probably would have changed, and 2) her personal attitude on a matter does not change Objectivism or my belief that it is the best philosophy to live by. It is beneficial to consider Objectivism completely separate from its creator.

I'm basing my belief that she would have changed in time, with new knowledge, because of something else she said. I've mentioned it before, on other discussion threads, but I didn't have the exact reference - now I do.

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology, a book that I sometimes found a challenging read, she says on p57 regarding Axiomatic Concepts...

"Axiomatic concepts identify explicitly what is merely implicit in the consciousness of an infant or of an animal. Implicit knowledge ... to be grasped, requires a special focus and process of consciousness ... which an animal's consciousness is unable to perform."

An animal's awareness would translate to "a disconnected succession of random moments such as, 'Here now table - here now tree - here now man - I now see - I now feel' ... with only a few strands of memory in the form of 'This now food' or 'This now master.'" While a man's, by means of axiomatic concepts, is "The table exists - the tree exists - man exists - I am conscious."

I think that modern science has discovered that her description of an animal's perception is no longer correct, at least with some animals.

Haven't the great apes shown compassion, knowledge of right and wrong (in the context of being an ape) and even a sense of justice (punishing those who do wrong)?

My own cat, much to my surprise, made the connection between the concrete of a tantalizing red dot (a laser pointer's beam) that's fun to chase and a gray cylinder that I was holding in my hand, and furthermore that my hand controls the cylinder and the tantalizing red dot. I know she made that connection because after I set it down she pawed at it.

"Give me a break!" you say? Now if she wants to play, she will jump up on the end table next to my chair and paw at the laser pointer and then look at me. If I pick it up she will immediately jump on the floor, run about 3 or 4 feet, and then look at me. Then when I press the button she'll chase the red dot like crazy.

You might not be completely convinced. Two weeks ago a friend was over, sitting on the couch which is also next to that same end table. The cat started pawing at the laser pointer but I wasn't even in the room. As I came in he asked, "Why is the cat pawing the laser pointer?" I told him to pick it up, and when he did the cat jumped down and then looked back at him. He pushed the button and she chased the red dot.

I had mentioned her making that connection to the vet at her last checkup. He was surprised but said he'd seen that kind of advanced (for a cat) understanding before. There is one cat that comes in and when it sees the solid-black paper cutouts of cats that adorn the wall near the ceiling he glares at them and growls. He recognizes those shapes as cats even though lots of other clues as to their "cat-ness" are missing (color, size, movement, scent, etc).

The conceptual understanding that allows my cat to *think*, "I want to play, chasing the red dot is fun, that thing makes the red dot and my human can use it to make the red dot go all over the place" and "I want to play, that other person can also make the red dot go all over the place" amazes me and clearly demonstrates that there's a lot more than "Here now table - here now food" going on. And animals with far more intelligence than cats must be making much more complicated conceptual connections than that.

Do great apes, or dolphins, for instance, ever think, "I exist - I am conscious?" Does any other animal besides man qualify as sentient?

My whole long-winded point is, that when faced with new scientific knowledge about the sophisticated level of thinking in some animals, she would have reconsidered how she presented the material on Axiomatic Concepts and even investigated whether or not it changed any aspect of Objectivism. (I think it probably would not.)

A personal note: My cat's everyday name is Dagger, but that is a shortening of Dagney Taggart!

and some people grow up 'undecided' until they reach or pass puberty and try out both roads and 'make their decision.'

But I do have a suspicion that the number of folks who do that is NOT a large percentage of gays and the majority of gays had The Realization of their sexual preference either earlier than that, or came to it as a 'realization,' not a 'choice.'

Maybe it's a semantic issue?

You were defended as not a liberal. Congratulations on displaying the same identical boorish name calling they resort to.

So using your earlier logic, since you use the same methods as a liberal you must be a liberal and a liberal by definition cannot be an objectivist, there you must not be an objectivist, since you have failed in discussing using REASONING.

Also you make outlandish statement as though they are fact. Science calls gravity the Big G. They do this for a reason.

If you have any "Objectivist interest in REASON, you may choose to READ something intellectual.

http://ncse.com/rncse/27/5-6/gravity-its...

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/201...

Actually it IS faith regarding the apple since it has not fallen and until such point as it DOES fall, there is NO proof at all what will happen to it given the billion or more possibilities.

You have FAITH in the outcome based on evidence of other demonstrable actions. Faith is NOT blind but uses evidence to substantiate the point of view.

I did not downpoint this. Faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I had to go down to the second definition because the first one was just about belief in God. But what is key here is the refutation of reason and observation. that's fine. just notice the very strong contradiction between Objectivism and this definition. It should feel dissonant. but this should be on another post

She wrote this in an earlier post, "Yes I did decide not to be gay when my best friend, when we were teens, experimented with the idea."

As expected, her statement is incorrect. She *realized* that she wasn't gay. Every human does that, they eventually come to understand what their sexual orientation is.

I have to ask what an SJW is...

You're even more of an idiot that I first imagined.

"However you cannot PROVE gravity", maybe not me, personally, but science has PROVEN gravity.

"I have faith that if I drop and apple from 200ft up it will fall..." That is NOT faith. You earlier accused khalling of not knowing the definition of faith, but clearly that particular statement should have been made while looking into a mirror.

Scientists agree there are no gay genes. Yes I did decide not to be gay when my best friend, when we were teens, experimented with the idea. I assume you are capable of doing your own research. Do you believe we don't have a choice or free will to determine the path our life will take? Why would anyone bring up in conversation that they chose to love their spouse or chose to be homosexual? The evidence is in their actions. There is no need to look any further than that.

There is an original cause for everything in existence. Is that reason or faith? How can a person be completely objective about our existence without a belief system? When reading or viewing Rand's works we all apply our own beliefs. That's what makes this discussion board work.

It was a pure case of using Turing for what they wanted and then destroying him and throwing him away afterward. Given the work he was doing and its oversight along with security clearances and counter-espionage efforts during the project one thing is clear...

His sexual preferences and actions had to have been known. It follows they overlooked it until his usefulness decreased enough to discard him.

+1 for truth here

Hate crime legislation or anything like it is an abomination.

Frustration is one thing Khalling.

Personally attacking those with whom you disagree like this is at best poor behavior. Not in keeping with either Objectivist principles or acceptable conduct here.

Then you do not know the meaning and definition of "Faith".

I think Timelord was experiencing a fair amount of frustration regarding the topic of "choosing" homosexuality. And to really rub salt in it, the assumption he would advocate a gay political agenda. His reputation in the gulch has always been to apply O principles.

Timelord is the furthest from liberal. Saying that because someone is homosexual they are a liberal is like saying because Condie Rice is black, she must be a democrat. :)

Please make sure to use the reply button associated with the comment you are responding to (located underneath each comment).

There is no avoiding the issue between reason and faith. Faith is not reason. Reason is a primary concept in Objectivism. By all means accept and utilize principles of Objectivism. But ignoring a primary contradiction does not make it go away.