OK, Fred, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

In general, bringing non-political issues into a discussion of applied politics engenders confusion. The personal preferences of individuals that one deals with are a valid praxeological and economic consideration in the market - one that ought to be left to the discretion of the affected parties, and to the exercise of property rights either way.

Political interference breeds hostility. It gets people who prefer smoke to clean air, and those who prefer clean air to smoke, to view the other as aggressors against their rights. And now the same thing is happening between people who prefer butter and olive oil to hydrogenated fats, and vice versa. Keeping that fact in mind, and avoiding preference-based collectivisms in discussions of politics, is the only effective way to "clear the smoke" that obscures the real issues at stake.

Adam, apparently you misread my original comment about smoking. True, I did rant about what I consider the over-reaction of many people to smoking (but note that I excluded asthmatics) and I did complain about my company's policies on the matter. But it was in the context of gov't interference on this issue which I think motivated many companies to institute restrictions and outright bans on smoking.

Any private business of course has the right to restrict or ban smoking (or anything else), if they wish. ARI, ironically, banned it on their premises right from the start(Mike Berliner, the first president of ARI, was asthmatic and there may have been other staff members similarly sensitive). But the issue has never been private restrictions or bans and you know it, attempts at proposing supposed "smokers' rights" to the contrary nothwithstanding.

Ayn Rand, btw, was always courteous and mindful of property rights about her own smoking. I recall one occasion at Brooklyn College when she stayed afterwards to answer questions of a group that had gathered around her in the auditorium and she asked if smoking was permitted before she lit up.

Fred,

Of course I don't approve of "tit-for-tat" abuse, and I believe I stated this explicitly. You were the one who complained about the effects of a law that merely restored an owner's natural right to prohibit (or permit) smoking on his property.

The "smokers' rights law" was enacted before legislation was posted on the Web, but a simple Google search yields , among others, a reference to the fact that "From 1989-1995 the cigarette industry sponsored smoker's bills of rights legislation in all 50 states to include smoking status as a form of illegal employment discrimination." References to "any claims for discrimination of any kind under the ... AIDS Testing Confidentiality Act; Occupational Safety and Health Laws; Rights of Person's With Disabilities Law; Smoker's Rights Law; the Adoptive Parents Child Care Leave Law; the Bias Against Cancer Victim's Law; Equal Rights Law; .." are part of standard legal boiler-plate in employment matters, because all those laws were written with very similar provisions, and all included prohibitions against "verbal harassment in the workplace."

Of course, no one here, and certainly not me, is suggesting that we "structure society as if it were a hospital ward." At the same time, a reasonable consideration of the potential harm is integral to acting rationally in one's own interest. Frankly, what you posted on the subject appeared to equate a bus company's right to prohibit smoking in its bus stops, or an employer's decision to prohibit smoking in its private workplace, with prohibitions forcibly imposed by the state. We both oppose the latter, but I hope that your opinion on the former is not what it appears to be from what you posted in this thread.

This is the first I have ever heard of "Smokers' Rights" laws. It's also hard to believe that these laws prohibited you from even asking people not to smoke. That aside, it is entirely irrelevant to the issue, since one ridiculous law doesn't justify another - and I'm surprised that you would bring up something like "tit-for-tat". After freeing the slaves, should blacks have been permitted to enslave whites on some such grounds as reversing the previous injustice?

I sympathize with your asthma but nearly all of us has some medical condition, handicap, or physical or other disadvantage and we cannot expect the world to be turned upside down to accomodate it. I believe Ayn Rand once said that we cannot structure society as if it were a hospital ward.

The absurd suggestion to ban "trans-fat" in restaurants, etc. is simply a logical extension of the smoking prohibitions. There is no end in sight.

Lindsay B. you're a breath of fresh air. I'd guess that your reasoning probably matches the reasoning at ARI, that it's an accurate portrayal of what they actually think. And it makes a certain amount of sense.

But even given their objectives, which I disagree with (except for certain parts, like the book program), I think this is a tactical blunder. I mean, just look at how Marnee responded. She's practically chomping at the bit to chow down some trans fats as a statement of her virtue. Clearly, the ARI release didn't communicate to *her* very clearly on this one, and she's an avid ARI fan. I can't imagine that those who don't know about ARI are going to be getting the right message.

A long time ago Ayn Rand said that her job was to tell people *what* Objectivism is, but it was the job of others to tell people *that* it is. That is the ARI strategy, and I think it's wrong, or at best, demonstrates far too little ambition. It made sense way back when, during the genesis of Objectivism, and while Ayn Rand was alive. But now I think we need to pick up her powerful engine of creation and get down to the creating. The creation itself will draw attention--and Ayn Rand demonstrated that. Her novels garner more attention for Objectivism than anything else anyone else is doing or has ever done. They are in themselves an exhibit of what such a powerful philosophy can do. The world needs more of that, more accomplishment, not mere missionaries for Ayn Rand's accomplishments. Show people a glorious creation and they will be begging you to tell them how you did it.

This creation could be happening in many different realms, not the least of which is political architecture, a sphere that most Objectivists profess disdain for merely because of something they thought they heard Ayn Rand say.

I'm sorry, but SWJ and everyone else in this thread seem to be missing one important point about what ARI seems to do as regards choosing topics for press releases.

To a large extent, according to the ARI literature and State of ARI presentations, the media activities of ARI serve the purpose of simply calling attention to ARI and to Ayn Rand. Secondarily, it seems, the media activism has the purpose of influencing opinion to the limited extent possible in op-eds, letters to the editor, press releases and interviews.

Remember that ARI is primarily an educational organization focusing on introducing young people to Ayn Rand. ARI is *not* a political activism organization engaged primarily in trying to influence public opinion in the short term on concrete political issues. This way of setting the priorities are, of course, in line with Ayn Rand's own ideas about how best to effect cultural change in a real and lasting way.

So one of the major considerations, it seems from the history of their media activity, in prioritizing these things is to respond quickly to the items that are *currently "hot" in the current "news cycle"* and which can also be clearly communicated in simple terms by reference to the principles involved. (Contrast this with the mistake of the Tsunami aid--a "hot" news item for which it should have been seen couldn't be effectively communicated in the brief space of a press release. ARI's "retraction", if you can call it that, made that exact point. Too easily misunderstood in the space of what can be communicated.)

I saw the trans-fat thing on just about every news program and in just about every news publication for a period of several days around the time the press release in question was put out by ARI. So if the primary purpose of all that activity is to get your press release picked up by media outlets, possibly garner some interviews, etc, then going with the hot stories that people seem to be interested in is, IMO, an obvious way to go.

Perhaps this will make things more clear to SWJ as far as understanding why this issue and not others? Let's hope so.

Cheers all,

Lindsay B.

Fred - I actually have asthma. For many years I lived in a state that had a "Smokers' Rights Law," under which I could not even ask my co-workers not to smoke around me - that would have been "illegal discrimination" or "harassment" under that law. Sometimes I'd have to leave a restaurant, on the verge of an asthma attack, before I could finish a meal - because another customer lit up in the non-smoking section, and the owner of the restaurant could not enforce a non-smoking section on his own premises - such sections were non-enforceable, being "against public policy" under the law. Funny how no "libertarians" or wannabee-"Objectivists" ever complained about "smokers' rights laws."

So now we have tit-for-tat. Chickens home to roost and all those other nice things. Not that I approve. When the law limits an owners right to allow smoking on his own property, I certainly don't. But when a law simply reverses previous "smokers' rights" and "public policy" precedents, and provides for enforcement of the owner's non-smoking policy, indoors or out, then I applaud.

Good one, Ted!

People often ask me if I mind if they smoke, I tell them I would mind if they didn't smoke. I was walking down the street one day, approaching a man on my left, smoking in the doorway. There was another man coming toward us from the other direction. He told the smoker "Those things'll kill'ya." I said "Yeah, and if you quit now, you'll be immortal." The guy in the door laughed, I walked off, the meddler stopped, hesitated, and yelled at me "He-ey!" I just kept walking, laughing to myself.

Ted

Here is the trial balloon from my neck of the woods. The proposal by the Village Council of the Chevy Chase neighborhood calls for an outdoor ban in all public places, including sidewalks, streets and grassy areas.

Wm

Unhinged? More like morbidly curious.

It's one thing to not like a guy who doesn't suffer fools (as if Rand did suffer them...) It's another thing entirely when outright lying for the sole purpose of chain-pulling and/or discrediting is considered good clean fun, and by someone who declares that they *like* reason and reality.

If you really were for reason, you'd at most tell me to tone it down and grow some politeness and at least tell Mazza to stop lying or ban him outright for doing so repeatedly. But here it seems that camaraderie ranks higher than reality and basic rules of civility, such as not making up big fat lies and spreading them around, or publishing private correspondence because you feel it would help make a case that hardly anyone cares about.

But hey, I can't complain too much. At least it's clear that everything you wrote about me is an insult and your opinion, it's not a twisted fabrication of half-truths and vicious lies.

I can't speak about America, but you might have missed the recent TV show here, available online, in which I was the sole opponent of a proposal by a Member of Parliament to ban smoking outright. It's coming all right.

Linz

P.S. —Guys, take no notice of Shayne. They let him out once in a while to bark a bit, yapping away at everyone else's stupidity, cluelessness, venal dishonesty, etc.. Having gotten it out of his system, he retreats to his kennel till his rabies next gets the better of him. He's unhinged. Ignore!

Yeah, I vaguely remember some town in perhaps Maryland passing or attempting to pass such an ordinance earlier this year. I don't recall the upshot. I'll keep an eye out for it and post it if I hear anything more.

But as Ted says, there is a progression going on here. At my former company - about 10yrs. ago, before I started my own business - it started with people being asked just to smoke in their own offices. Then it became you had to shut the door. Then one day one of the more "sensitive" (i.e.hysterical)* employees came in wearing a gas mask to make her point. Soon after we had to go downstairs and smoke outside the building. I left soon after (not just for that reason).

I also recall some attempt to even get people to stop smoking on the street - or maybe it was just at bus stops. I remember someone standing at the 42nd St. bus stop outside the Port Authority handing out tickets. But some judge overturned it. I'm sure Bloomberg would love to try putting that over again, if he hasn't already.

The joke going around at the time were the European visitors to NYC commenting on all the prostitutes on the streets. It was just women smoking outside their buildings. And of course now the exact same thing is happening in Europe - even in France, which is particularly shocking.

*At the risk of starting a firestorm on this subject (no pun intended), I believe there is only a very small percentage of the population that is genuinely bothered by tobacco smoke for long-standing medical reasons, e.g. asthma. The rest of it I consider psychologically induced hysterics and, now, hypersensitivity caused by all the bans (and which is why ex-smokers are often the most sensitive). The woman I mentioned above who came into work with a gas mask had no problem whatever walking out the door every night into the streets of NYC with its bus and car fumes, plus whatever else is swirling around in the air on the streets of NYC. But if someone was smoking clear across the office behind 2 or 3 closed doors between her and that office, she could sense it. (I had a colleague who claimed he could tell if someone had smoked in a hotel room in the last 6months). I don't think the frigging sniff dogs they use at airports can do better than that!!

Adam,

I have heard the same as Fred, but don't have specifics, and was perhaps trial ballons. But, given the way things go, you cxan see its coming.

Fred - you write, "For example, there are communities discussing - and I believe even passing - ordinances completely banning smoking, even in one's own home (on the grounds that the smoke wafts over fences or seeps through walls into neighboring apartments)."

Is there any documentable substance to that belief? The closest referent to what you "believe" that I know of, is an ordinance to levy a fine if a landlord does not permit smoking (for example, because landlord and tenant share a home ventillation system, and the landlord prefers clean air) and the tenant breaches this condition of her lease. A contractual penaly for smoking in breach of lease would be enforceable in a free society, but it was against previous "public policy" in California - hence the ordinance.

Do you know something I don't?

More ad hominem. Very Dianaesque.

Well, if you looked at the time I changed my name to my initials and removed my picture (maybe the admins have the logs, maybe not), it was almost immediately after Diana posted her 12,000 word Magnum Opus. It was not immediately after the end of our discussion. It was instead about a month after arguing with you, and in any case, that was the cause. It wasn't your puny little Diana parroting arguments, I've dealt with far better.

So that's another of your lies. You Mazza are a bald-faced liar. You already admitted as much, and now you take up the lying again. I find it incredible that you call yourself a follower of Rand when you indulge yourself in such utter fabrications, fabrications that you must know are indeed fabrications. You know, they have this thing called the "wayback" machine. I wonder if it scanned this site at just the right times. Maybe I'll check.

Anyway, the true cause: after seeing Diana's bizarre public disassociation with one of her friends published and sanctioned here, I was embarrassed. There were other factors influencing why I stopped posting, but that is what precipitated me removing my picture. These had absolutely nothing to do with you and started long before we had our little discussion or before you ever arrived here. Certain other members of Solo are well aware of these but I'm inclined to think that they're not going to come to my defense even if they did remember the cause or time sequence. My guess is that they're happy to let injust remarks against me that they know to be false stand.

I never proposed anything for OCON. I did propose something many years ago as I published to this very forum, but you are dropping context as usual. Post a link if you want, that discussion is in this forum. As a treat readers can see Casey act like you and Diana, if they like that sort of thing.

I point out you're making shit up and you claim I'm crying "victim". Very clever. As I said before, you learned well from the Master. But your smearing methods are better suited to other philosophies, not Objectivism.

Based on the fact that Shayne stopped posting and changed his screen name immediately after the end of our discussion of names, I concluded that he simply put his tail between his legs and ran. I still think he ran away in shame. I also suspect he cries after being bitch-slapped on web forums, because he obviously has a fragile, what with calling everyone stupid all the time. I guess this all makes me a liar, though I fail to see how it is relevant to this conversation, so I'm puzzled as to why my name was brought up. But since he asked for it, here is more stuff that I hope will hurt Mr. Wissler emotionally.

For all those who don't know, Shayne once proposed a lame brained lecture topic to someone at OCON. It was shot down, most likely because it was stupid and because Shayne is even more unpleasant in person. This seems to be the root of Wissler's grudge against ARI. I'm posting this in the hope that it pisses Shayne off even more than my more recent anti-Shayne posts.

Wissler has a rather transparent pattern. He comes into a discussion swinging (and offering nothing of interest), confident in the stupidity of all who oppose him. When someone dares point out what he is doing, he starts acting like a victim, like he was having a civil conversation and someone else was shooting around words like "knucklehead."

In other words, he's every negative Objectivist stereotype rolled into one.

- Mike

will treat you to [a toxic quantity of] fried Mozzarella...

Ted

And will leave Marnee affair to her discretion.

As it happens, I'll be in NYC next week. Agree with the Never Again idea. That's part of my point: argue against all the insanity, don't just come out swinging on the least of the evils. At a minimum, at least include a link to something that points out the evils of which the trans fatty movement is just a very small part (aynrand.org isn't specific enough--make the point about the nanny state regulating what we put into our own bodies).

Quaint attitude with the ladies. In intellectual matters I treat women as equals. They deserve no less.

To paraphrase Richard Simmons on Neil Cavuto today 04/OCT/2006 (Fox News):

Neil: Do you want to raise taxes to fight school age obesity?
Richard: No! I'm not into taxxes, this can be done on a voluntary basis.
Neil: Do you support a "fat tax?"
Richard: No! I'm not into that verkachte trans-fatty-acid, remove the soda from the schools stuff...kids aren't moving!!!

I will add in my two cents as being someeone who is not a huge proponent of ARI, but who is happy to see them act, and to act correctly in this matter.

To paraphrase the "Never Again" slogan:

"First they outlawed narcotics. Then they came for the underage drinkers, but I didn't worry. Then they came for the underage smokers. Then they came for those who smoked in public buildings, but I was not concerned. Then they mandated money-losing "recycling" schemes. Then they made us wear seat-belts, but I was not alarmed. Then they banned all smoking in public. Then they banned smoking at home, when children are present, but who's against children? Then they took the fruit juice out of schools, but I didn't speak up. Now they're banning trans-fatty acids. Tommorow they're coming to take away my Tivo, and who will speak for me then?"

It may not be my place to speak for Marnee's honor, but a certain knave here made one of the most eggregiously gratuitous swipes at her, with an unspeakably vile mention of p*bl*c ed*c*t**n. No one deserves such treatment, and certainly not such a sexy dame. It would be my pleasure to defend her honor, should she be willing to vouchsafe me her kerchief. I challenge the miscreant to a tilting bout, or a round at one of the fight-clubs available here in NYC. I throw down my gauntlet, you scurvy whelp of uncertain parentage. Darest thou take it up?

Ted Keer, 04 October, 2006, NYC

"Ha ha". It's an old picture. Or did you not read the stuff at the link you gave me?

Speaking of Galt's motor--I think Rand must have gotten at least some of the ideas for Galt from Tesla. People don't realize how much more we owe Tesla than Edison, how much more profound his work was, and how much greater its consequence.

This is exactly what I was talking about. He ekes out just enough... understanding... to properly restate Ayn Rand's principles, but is seemingly totally oblivious to the fact that we are not at the beginning of a slippery slope, we have already been sliding at high speed for a LONG time. I think most Objectivists--like most in the culture--do not understand how BAD things are, because they have acclimated to what is really an absolute nightmare.

We can't win the battle by playing whack-a-mole and particularly by making a lot of noise about issues like helping tsunami victims or helping people live longer through better food. One prong of ARI's approach is valid: spreading Ayn Rand's *works*. But the prong where they create new stuff--not working. They have no vision. Their vision as far as I can see is not far beyond that of a child: I read this cool stuff and I want you to read it too. Not a bad start, not nearly good enough. Ayn Rand left us a great philosophy, one that's meant to be *used*, not merely preached. It's not at present being used to formulate any long-term strategy here except "teach a bunch of people what Ayn Rand said and hope things get better." Well, that can "work", but only because somebody else might pick up the ball they dropped.

sjw, is than a copyrighted photograph?

Wm

Gov't intrusion into our private lives and decisions in matters that concern no one but ourselves is not a minor issue. Every victory the busybodies have won has encouraged them to go after new ones and minor annoyances have gradually become major intrusions. Minor restrictions become major and end up total. For example, there are communities discussing - and I believe even passing - ordinances completely banning smoking, even in one's own home (on the grounds that the smoke wafts over fences or seeps through walls into neighboring apartments).

Once an initial principle is granted, it becomes difficult and then impossible to stop the natural progression of its applications.

I was pleased that ARI took a stand on this newest outrage. It is totally getting out of hand.

Craig you asked why I called you presumptuous and I answered. Then you pretend I didn't answer or accuse me of being unclear. There's nothing unclear about my objecting to you calling me unprincipled without any grounds.

You're just latching onto Diana's dishonest attempt to short-circut any argument by claiming that I misuse words. She is expert at that trick--any time the arguments get tough for her, she shiftily discredits her opponent. That is her primary arguing tactic and skill. That's why I said Mazza learned well. He does it too. And now she's spreading her dishonest methods to the rest of the "masses" (if you can use that word for the Objectivist movement).

As for your arguments, I ignored them and told you why. That's not necessarily permanent, but I'm not going to address your arguments when you start yours with ad hominem. Take back the ad hominem, and I'll reply.

> You began the name-calling.

No, *you* began with the ad hominem. I responded in kind.

"He uses seemingly English words in such fantastically novel ways that to interpret them according to standard usage is to presume too much."

Brilliant

I should have applied the reading skills you demonstrated in your response to my reply. I would like to change my reply to:

sjw argues that the fact that something is immoral means that it should be made illegal. I say that he is a poo-poo head (which means he is a dishonest lurker without a picture).

Wm

I presented an argument against your objection to ARI's priorities. Twice. You ignored it, both times. You created a strawman. You began the name-calling.

Shayne, the only thing you made very clear was how stupid you think everyone else is. You're not a particularly clear writer. I'm sorry about that, because it does create difficulties, but there it is.

What would give you the idea that I think it's a violation of principles to prioritize? Again, I presented the "priorities" argument twice. You chose to claim -- twice -- that I'd put words in your mouth. I made it clear that I hadn't.

It's Mr. Green to those who linger here without a picture, sjw. I did nothing other then to point out you do not understand copyright. I guess I am the latest victim of reading your words at face value, since copyright is generally used in the legal sense.

Wm

Wm argues that the fact that something is legal makes it moral. I rest my case, er, cases. You're in good pragmatist company Diana.

Your responses have been full of illogical (and perhaps innocently so) replies to my points, but I didn't reply to any of them except the title, where you accuse me of being unprincipled, because that was NOT innocent.

You implied that since I don't want to eat trans fats, then that's why I don't care about this issue, but if I did happen to care, then I'd be all for arguing about trans fats. You assumed that because I'd be for ARI arguing for foie gras, then that adds evidence to your case that I'm only arguing because I don't personally like trans fats. "The very first thing you did in that post was to argue your own pleasure"--Nonsense. My personal pleasure has nothing to do with my argument; the point of me mentioning that was to indicate an assumption: that trans fats have no redeeming value other than to save a little money. Human life is obviously worth more than this little bit of money--we aren't starving for lack of food in this country.

I made it very clear that what I was objecting to was this characterization of me that my "principles depend on whose ox is being gored" which not only grossly mischaracterizes me but it evades what I explicitly said: that the issue I have is about the priorities (not the principles). Unless you think that it's a violation of principles to prioritize. But how could you think that? It's too obviously stupid.

Since there is a demonstration of gross misunderstanding of copyright on this thread, here is a FAQ on copyright. As far as 'common decency' I can only refer the reader to Diana's posts here and on her blog as to the ethics of releasing private correspondence.

Wm

See, I knew that I must have misinterpreted Shayne. It's inevitable. Again, I apologize*.

(* By "apologize," I now mean "laugh at Shayne's bizarre antics.")

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

As I said to Mazza when he purposefully lied (and later even admitted it) in order to make a point, he learned well from you Diana.

As with his lie, I honestly can't tell whether you mean to drop context as some sort of inside joke, or if you honestly think that what you said constitutes a reasonable interpretation of what I said. At least in your case there's no outright fabrication--yet. I guess I'll have to wait a few more posts for that then?

Too many self-proclaimed Objectivists bear the mark of a zealot: They think the end justifies the means. As in, they think it's OK to eggregiously violate the laws of logic and make up lies about their opponents in order to defend their false gods. Or violate the copyrights and all sense of common decency by posting private email correspondence to public forums.

Shayne, twice you accused me of putting words into your mouth. Twice. Show me -- show us -- where I did that. Shouldn't be difficult, you're so brilliant compared to the rest of us. And me, in particular, I'm a knucklehead, so I probably just forgot where I did it.

My posts are at 2006-10-04 16:25, 17:28, 17:59, 18:30, and 20:27. So go on, show me where I put words in your mouth.

And here's your strawman, since you asked. At 2006-10-04 17:46, you bemoaned the fact that you had to repeat yourself about "Yes, of course the nanny state has no business telling us what we eat, it's a moral outrage that they do. That's not my point." You repeated it twice, concluding, "See, tedious. Then to make it more tedious I have to spell out my point again and again, only to have to go over the imbecile's head again and again. Rinse repeat, but they're still as perceptive as a pet rock."

But that's not quite the case, is it? I made this point at 2006-10-04 16:25:

"Shayne is right, of course, that there are other, higher priority issues than this one, and I can't disagree with that. But perhaps, as I do, writers at ARI see this as a bit of "thin edge of the wedge" issue: there are moves to ban/regulate food supplements, for example, not just trans-fats. Try buying NyQuil-like cold remedies these days, without registering for it: the Feds assume that anyone wanting such ingredients is a potential meth dealer/manufacturer.

"Trans fats should probably be avoided by most people, and there are plenty of healthy fats out there. But this proposed ban is intrusive and stupid, and it's hardly a waste of ARI resources to oppose it. The ban itself, the example it sets, the precedent it would be seen to be...no, it's worth opposing this one."

Then, at 2006-10-04 17:28, I added this:

"Shayne, you prefer the taste of other fats over that of trans fats. That's fine, and no one should force you to consume or prefer anything other than what you like.

But that's the point here, too: trans fats provide convenience, which many people prefer over perceived taste differences, and are willing to pay for. Whose business is it to force them to choose otherwise, and what precedent does it set if accepted?

"Similarly, you shouldn't be forced to support ARI if you disagree so vehemently with its priorities and decisions. But that doesn't mean all who disagree with you are uneducated: it's not as if you've made an airtight case here. This case hits people where they live -- both their pocketbooks and the food they choose to put in their mouths -- and the attempt to deny the liberty to make such a choice is probably why ARI chose to tackle it."

Not only did I not accuse you of arguing that the nanny state has the right to tell us what to eat, neither did anyone else in this thread. Nobody. Not anywhere. If you're still claiming that, then show me. Put up or shut up.

So no, Shayne, I'm not trying to catch you in "some sort of illogic." It appears to be something even worse.

I did like "perceptive as a pet rock," though. Should I take it that you are claiming to be a feral rock?

Shayne said, "What I mean by "knucklehead" here for the most part is *presuming* that which you have no logical right to of your opponent given what they have *actually* said, putting words in their mouth."

Wow, I never realized that "knucklehead" had such a fancy technical meaning. My poor dictionary merely lists it as slang for "someone who is of low intelligence."

I now understand why Shayne's writings are so routinely misunderstood by others. He uses seemingly English words in such fantastically novel ways that to interpret them according to standard usage is to presume too much. I recommend that people ask Shayne to define every word in his future posts, so as to avoid any such misunderstandings. That's the only way not to commit the sin of presumption, I think.

Then again, I've surely misinterpreted Shayne's words. For that, I apologize* in advance.

(* By apologize I mean, "convertly communicate disdainful amusement.")

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Craig, I suppose you think you're being clever and going to catch me in some sort of illogic.

Well there we go again. What I mean by "knucklehead" here for the most part is *presuming* that which you have no logical right to of your opponent given what they have *actually* said, putting words in their mouth. Which is ironic: you accuse me of some sort of "strawman" argument (against what argument I have no idea) because the sense in which I use the term "knucklehead" went right over your head, so you do exactly the knucklehead thing and instead of asking what I mean, you accuse me according to your own mental fabrications of what you wrongly guess I mean.

Is it that difficult to not be presumptuous? Indeed, is the concept so foreign to you that you can't even grasp the idea of not being so? You're an Objectivist, right? Can you not reason from the facts at hand? Why do you insist on half-assed guessing all the time?

Shayne, WHO is taking the "knucklehead" position to which you continually refer?

You do recognize the term "strawman," yes?

I can't wait for the response to this one.

Marnee, I don't know if you went to public school, but you're a very good example of it. A casual Google search would have informed you how potentially dangerous your attitude about trans fats was to your own health, as well as demonstrating why this ARI release questionable (For the knuckleheads: Again, and again, ad nauseum: no, not in terms of principles the government should abide by. The nanny state is immoral.)

You call me a "drama queen" because you haven't the first clue about how bad things are and how wrong-headed this whack-a-petty-and-insignificant-mole approach of ARI is and how much better we could be and should be at the cultural war.

For the religious zealots: Yes, I know about ARI's promotional activities, and as for the high school essay contests, I think they're a good thing. I also don't have kudos to hand out for any other "Objectivist" organization (as you probably want to pin that on me too). I think that no Objectivist organization has its eye on the ball. Neither does any "Libertarian" one. It's *all* a big mess. The only reason I single out ARI is that I expect more from the de facto keepers of the flame.

*If* we ever survive this age, that will be the irony: that the "Objectivists", who should have been champions of a better age, ended up being not so very far from the status quo in the important respects, that the creative dynamo of a philosophy that Rand left was mostly unused by them. It's Galt's motor, and it's rusting in a pile of dust in a corner while you guys play whack-a-mole.

Shayne, get a grip drama queen. Thomas Lee was right. Do you have no sense of porportion? Certainly this issue deserves at least this short Letter to the Editor.

By the way to eveyone who corrected me on the nature of transfats:

Thanks. Good to know.

"Uneducated," "knucklehead," and "imbecile" were your words. Your fantasies are your own.

"Mr. Lee's thesis is looking more credible all the time."

You mean you're actually not going to latch onto his religious-zealot attidude and actually attempt figure it out for yourself? I must say, I underestimated you.

"The only point you've actually made is that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is uneducated, an idiot, a knucklehead, an imbecile, etc."

Disagreement is fine. Putting your ridiculous words into my mouth isn't fine. I would have liked to think that people who call themselves "Objectivist" would be more objective when the read, but I know now that that's a fantasy.

The only evidence Thomas Lee provides is that some ARI apologists will stoop to any level of vile rationalization and hypocrisy.

The length of the release is obviously irrelevant and Lee is dishonest to imply otherwise. ARI makes and must make a limited number of stands though the year and it chose to make this one. Any stand is significant because they chose to make it. Anyone familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy would know that.

Lee's dishonesty doesn't stop there when he stoops to ad hominem attack of me. He doesn't know me or my motives or my reasons for thinking ARI's priorities are wrong in general. He just sees somebody criticizing who he takes as his religious leaders and viciously denounces.

Got your WTF? right here, pal: the very first thing you did in that post was to argue your own pleasure.

The only point you've actually made is that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is uneducated, an idiot, a knucklehead, an imbecile, etc.

You're right to bring up the idea of tedium. Mr. Lee's thesis is looking more credible all the time.

"Principles depend on whose ox is being gored" -- WTF?

I just knew some knucklehead would say something like this. I mean, they always do.

No where did I claim the government was right to be involved, or that the principles of rational individualism don't apply (actually, I can see how one might make an argument for banning trans fats on the basis of having a right to expect your food not to contain harmful substances, but I didn't). I *almost* knucklehead-proofed my argument but you know, it gets tedious to do that on every post. And anyways, half the time, the knuckleheads ignore the knucklehead-proofing anyway. So I still end up repeating things like:

"Yes, of course the nanny state has no business telling us what we eat, it's a moral outrage that they do. That's not my point."

"Yes, of course the nanny state has no business telling us what we eat, it's a moral outrage that they do. That's not my point."

"Yes, of course the nanny state has no business telling us what we eat, it's a moral outrage that they do. That's not my point."

See, tedious. Then to make it more tedious I have to spell out my point again and again, only to have it go over the imbecile's head again and again. Rinse repeat, but they're still as perceptive as a pet rock.

Craig, Shayne's post is dishonest. That press release is 200 words. I doubt that consumed a great deal of ARI's resources, and certainly says nothing about their priorities. The question is: is what they said true? Is a ban on trans-fats a violation of rights? And it is. It's not worth arguing with Shayne about the merits of this issue when he wasn't motivated by this issue, but by an irrational hatred of ARI.

Shayne, you prefer the taste of other fats over that of trans fats. That's fine, and no one should force you to consume or prefer anything other than what you like.

But that's the point here, too: trans fats provide convenience, which many people prefer over perceived taste differences, and are willing to pay for. Whose business is it to force them to choose otherwise, and what precedent does it set if accepted?

Similarly, you shouldn't be forced to support ARI if you disagree so vehemently with its priorities and decisions. But that doesn't mean all who disagree with you are uneducated: it's not as if you've made an airtight case here. This case hits people where they live -- both their pocketbooks and the food they choose to put in their mouths -- and the attempt to deny the liberty to make such a choice is probably why ARI chose to tackle it.

Exactly how do unnatural trans fats add to my pleasure? I have a recipe for cookies that says to add trans fatty Crisco oil. I use butter instead because it tastes better. As I said before, the cook is going to have to comment on how trans fats are like foie gras. From my layman vantage point unnatural trans fats are worse than Coors beer.

Obviously the nanny state is a pernicious evil. But why focus on comparatively insignificant intrusions that even have some good consequences when there are intrusions that are having disasterous consequences? If industrial processed trans fats were pleasure inducing, I'd be all for ARI's remarks (did they speak out for foie gras? No I assume? Why defend trans fats but not foie gras?).

The nanny state as a rule kills people and makes them suffer. The FDA keeps good drugs off the market and doesn't let cancer patients try new treatments or keeps suffering people from getting pain medication. The welfare state misdirects resources and creates crime causing murder, suicide, and personal frustration rather than fulfillment. Antitrust ruins the lives of businessmen; public education makes kids stupid. There are thousands upon thousands of concretes to be examined here, it is an absolute waste of time to get in a huff about trans fats specifically.

Frankly, I think this bad choice in priorities indicates people who are barely educated enough to see the principle (the nanny state is bad) but aren't educated enough to see the sourge in all its vivid detail.

Marnee,

Biologically, it is true that fats that are liquid at room temperature are more healthy (as a broad generalization) than are solid fats. Solidity indicates a higher molecular weight and/or a higher tendency to bind, which can exacerbate cardio-vascular problems. Both become less viscous at body temperature, but solid fats less so than liquid ones. Of course, the comparisons are subject to all the usual qualifications, and moderation is best, and the issue is not one to be legislated. My sister, who was the most health conscious member of my family, and an active athlete, died of an undiagnosed heart problem at age 20. The only relevant issue to me is, does one's bad habit make one unhealthy enough not to enjoy other aspects of life. I expect to die today, and will try to live until it happens. Health Nazis are getting their unhealthy kicks from denying themselves, and worse, others - second hand souls.

Ted Keer, 04 October, 2006, NYC

For those unfamiliar with our beloved Mayor, Mr. Bloomberg, a life-long Democrat, ran on the Republican ticket, shrewdly calculating that he could beat a Democratic candidiate who had alienated Hispanic voters during his primary race against the presumptive first Hispanic mayor. Bloomberg bamboozeld the Republicans, running on an anti-tax platform, and spent millions of dollars postering the city's Spanish neighborhoods. Although he never metioned it during the campaign, his first substantive act as mayor, other than forcing through the largest tax increase in city history, was to ban indoor smoking. He justified this based on the "second hand smoke" argument. Evidently we have a second hand fat problem now?

Bloomberg is a smarmy creep who loves to meddle. He's the type who, if he were homosexual, would marry and raise children just to have someone to boss around. He has personally done everything he could (in conjunction with RINO Goverenor George Pit-aki) to block rebuilding the Twin Towers, something that a majority of NY'ers have backed since 9/12. Given his extensive real-estate holdings, Bloomberg should be impeached for conflict of interest. Both Blooberg and "I have increased spending more than Cuomo ever did" Pit-aki are touted as possible presidential nominees. Bloomberg is often touted as a possible independent candidate. Both of these moral degenerates should be run out of town on a rail. Or be boiled in trans-fat. God, I want Mayor Koch back.

Ted Keer, 04 October, 2006, NYC

Thanks Craig.

Ted, you make an excellent point here about the "highest aspirations of the nanny state." It's for that reason that I have to disagree with Shayne on this one.

Shayne is right, of course, that there are other, higher priority issues than this one, and I can't disagree with that. But perhaps, as I do, writers at ARI see this as a bit of "thin edge of the wedge" issue: there are moves to ban/regulate food supplements, for example, not just trans-fats. Try buying NyQuil-like cold remedies these days, without registering for it: the Feds assume that anyone wanting such ingredients is a potential meth dealer/manufacturer.

Trans fats should probably be avoided by most people, and there are plenty of healthy fats out there. But this proposed ban is intrusive and stupid, and it's hardly a waste of ARI resources to oppose it. The ban itself, the example it sets, the precedent it would be seen to be...no, it's worth opposing this one.

We used to actually do things here in America, and even if they should technically have been private undertakings, we went to the Moon, we built the WTC, and the Interstate Highway system. Now the highest aspirations of the nanny state are to hand out condoms and ban food ingredients? Isn't this not only evil, but also an unconstitutional restriction of trade? God bless the ARI for opposing this nonsense.

Ted

Well I'm glad that ARI has their priorities straight.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat:

"Trans fats occur naturally in the milk and body fat of ruminants (such as cows and sheep) at a level of 2-5% of total fat."

"Foods containing artificial trans fats formed by partially hydrogenating plant fats may contain up to 45% trans fat compared to their total fat."

...

"Hu and colleagues analyzed data from 900 coronary events from the NHS population during 14 years of followup. He determined that a nurse's CHD risk roughly doubled (relative risk of 1.94) for each 2% increase in trans fat calories consumed (instead of carbohydrate calories). By contrast, it takes more than a 15% increase in saturated fat calories (instead of carbohydrate calories) to produce a similar increase in risk. Eating non-trans unsaturated fats instead of carbohydrates reduces the risk of CHD rather than increasing it."

Since I'm not the resident cook I can't say for certain, but it sure seems that the only redeeming qualities of man-made trans fats are that it makes food cheaper (cheaper to make and cheaper to store). And the cost of it being cheaper is a higher risk of heart attack.

Doesn't sound like a good tradeoff. It looks to me that man-made trans fats might objectively be bad for human life--assuming we're not destitute and can afford to pay a little more for food. It looks to me that in the ideal society (that wasn't filled with sheep), trans fats would not be in the food anyway. Contrast that with the ban on smoking in restaurants: at least smoking is inherently enjoyable to some.

Obviously it's not the government's job to tell us what to eat or to enforce popular demand. On the other hand, they've monopolized the market for consumer reporting and have dumbed down the population. If we had capitalism, then it sure looks like all the privately-owned consumer food safety organizations would be screaming about man-made trans fats and no one would want to eat them. It sure looks like the ideal food would not contain man-made trans fats.

So what's the point in spending ARI donor dollars fighting about this issue when there are thousands upon thousands of other issues where the government interferes and it actually causes the non-ideal to happen? This reminds me of the time when ARI made a stink about helping tsunami victims.

John, will you marry me?

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

I'll eat whatever I want, wherever I want, whenever I want. And if a restaurant wants to serve food with trans fats - and if I desire to consume them - no one had better get in the way. Never interfere with a man and his food.

"Just puttin' it out there."

And, I for one am very glad when you do, Marn

The thread is about regulation. Bad idea, obviously. No such warrant exists.

But from a health perspective, it's good to cut down on those hard or saturated fats. A couple of years ago after a creeping cholesterol count (not high, just getting up there), I laid off butter in my cooking and substituted olive oil. I also changed to a brand of milk with lower fat and higher calcium. Now, I enjoy meals more that are made with oils instead of butter and if I drink full cream milk I get a little bilious.

That said, if a recipe *needs* the taste and effect of butter or cream, in it goes. I'm not flagellating myself over this, just making some simple changes while I'm still young enough for it to have a good effect over time.

Marn, butter or similar doesn't melt or split at body temp, 37c. It goes soft, but that's all. And I'm not too sure that the effects of hard fats are related to their melting or non-melted state. I think it's the way the fat molecules latch onto things that matters. But I'm not an expert. Can you tell?

Foie gras, trans fats -- what's next? At least some members of government had the good sense to crusade for a repeal of the foie ban, but now we have another moronic escapade to deal with.

Sigh.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

I saw on Oprugh that apparently these transfats are "bad" for you because they are solid at room temperature. Huh? Lots of crap is solid at room temperature. Are we to ban peanubutter? Are we to ban cucumbers? But then I had another thought. The inside of the human body is higher than room temperature. In fact, it is a good 10 degrees warmer. So these transfats, when ingested, will melt and then be liquid. So there isnt any difference between them and the so-called "good" oils, once ingested. This was suspiciously not covered on the show. So I have yet to figure out why trans-fats are bad other than they are essentially man-made (ie not naturally occurring), and of course anything man-made is essentially evil, as we are all well aware .

Just puttin' it out there.