KawaiiMathematician

It does look strange, but they could be refugees from the collapse of Reddit.

That's definitely true, especially in the US. In the context of recent developments, I can see how the decrease itself is concerning.

My point is mainly that it does not mean that over 50% of Republicans want to put gay people behind bars, which can easily be concluded from something like this. I think it represents a general attitude but isn't a concerning statistic on its own.

Your comment on the context of current legislation is a good way of conceptualizing the data, but nonetheless I don't think that 43% acceptance is bad. Adding in probably 90%+ of acceptance from Democrats, the average is still well over 50% in most areas, so saying that a characteristically anti-LGBT group is anti-LGBT is not too concerning.

Either way, it's obviously important to be aware of political trends, and I don't want to discourage a high level of awareness. The swift erosion of rights in the US is cincerning enough for me to start learning German with a general idea of moving to Switzerland.

Thank you for commenting.

The question is worded in terms of morality, not acceptability within society. I might find non-veganism immoral, but I rarely mention this fact to others, and while I have lived a vegan lifestyle for almost 7 years now, I make no suggestion to others on the subject unless prompted directlt in conversation. If many Republicans feel that same-sex relationships are immoral, this may primarily impact their attitudes towards their own lives and not how they see those of others.

Furthermore, less than 50% support doesn't mean over 50% direct rejection. Plenty of individuals don't know what to think and will let anything happen as they drift through their lives. Thus, this statistic alone isn't enough to conclude that most Republicans are against same-sex relationships.

What is freedom-loving about conservatives? They often spend more than Democrats, are just as invested in welfare, and skirt the line on LGBT issues and freedom of education these days. Democrats can be bad in extreme cases for sure, and I don't like them just because I dislike conservatism, but "conservative" presidents won't bring freedom, if you mean Trump and the like.

The way you talk about Rand, her life, and her philosophy sounds like you get those beliefs from others who have processed these things already. I remember being told by a professor od philosophy that ethical egoism was "screw you, I've got mine" just as you have said, and that because Rand died as a result of her smoking and she cheated on her husband at one point, clearly her ideas are worthless. These examples constitite a straw man and ad hominem, plain and simple, circular as well. The fact that you and this think that an ethical system can be "bad" instead of just "inaccurate" demonstrates that you are assuming an ethical system already to wvaluate it; this must be avoided, because it is impossible to learn without accepting ideas that contradict one's current beliefs and values.

As for the ineffective nature of charity...mathematically, that's not true. But either way, in Objectivism, ethical egoism condemns force and any moral obligation to be altruistic, so any direct welware program would be unethical. If you want to give people a chance at a better life, all you can do is lend a hand to those in need...AKA you can volunteer every week like me, or look into Effective Altruism, which I am sure you are very familiar with already. Altruism in this sense of the word is good because it increases the wealth of society, thereby increasing my chance of happiness in life. However, it is certainly not true that every last person who doesn't want to work to survive--I know and have known plenty of people like this--deserves the resources of those who are highly productive. On the other hand, chariry is a value Ayn Rand holds, but only when one can not only spare it, but serves to benefit from it, which is not as uncommon a situation as you might think.

Finally, for a book, "Objecticism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" is a full construction of her philosophy from core principles onward. If you read it, try to follow the logic from basic principles onward and derive the whole system before you judge it emotionally, and see if it holds its own as a philosophy. Good luck, I hope you benefit from it.

Ad hominem and a complete mischaracterization of Rand and her books? At this point I don't know if we're talking about the same person.

Yes, Objecticism is founded on ethical egoism, but altruistic values are emphasized when they are consequences of basic virtues. There isno emphasis on failing to help others, but instead encouragement to do so only when one truly wishes to, free of guilt for what one has earned.

Also, Rand lived a rather generous life herself i many ways, especially for an egoist. Also, claiming her system of ethics is bad because she is a bad person is circular and useless. ;)

Okay, but have you read a construction of her actual system? It's not about greed, it's a system of ethics based on two things: basic metaphysical axioms you must accept to even consider any kind of philosophical discourse, and the fact that human being are alive. It sounds impossible, but she created a 100% objective system of ethics based on these principles, hence the name Objectivism. The point isn't whether you like the idea or not, the point is whether you understand the logical origin of the ideas and why they are correct. It's a deeply interesting system if you want to fully examine it. Here is a link to an objective source on her work including many criticisms that might help you understand it better if that's something you wish to do.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/notes.html#note-7

Have you really looked into her philosophical work? I think she's historically the closest to constructing a convincing ethical system based on logical principles connected to reality. Your last quote is something that might as well have been a toned-down version of her ideas, given how close it is to what she believed in her life.

I don't suggest ignoring anything. However, many people take the fatalist perspective as a careful one without really evaluating its accuracy, and thus it spreads and locks an uncertain future into the result it assumes.

Your arguments have nothing to do with my comment and distract from the point. There is nothing similar between lacking the need to eat or being abused with a nail and the fact that consistent and fair political ideas must be rational in nature. I didn't claim that emotions are not relevant.

Emotions represent beliefs which, if they match what ia metaphysically true, will ve logical. Emotions that conflict with facts represent miscalculations. The point is that, since ethics can be based off of logic from starting principles about humans and the universe, it should be followed as such instead of being tugges in any given direction by populism.

At any rate, you're right that others don't support the idea.

Firstly, that pessimistic attitude is invading the minds of many and all it does is confuse values and prevent progress, so I would recommend focusing on doing what you can to assert your values and bring change rather than spreading fatalism.

Secondly, this formulation has been done to a great extent by Ayn Rand, and reading Peikoff's full exploration of her ideas would be a great way to see this in detail. I think her prejudice prevents her from reasoning accurately on some higher-level points, but the point is that ethics and politics can be derived from basic axioms specifically because all humans have one core value of their own continued existence. I've been working the details out and I'd like to talk about it if you are interested in playing with the ideas.

The solution to the "both sides" argument is to develop a rigorous system of values based on purely logical reasoning with a definitive answer to what is ethical and what cannot be tolerated. As long as people follow emotional arguments and lines of reasoning based on higher-level concepts that fail to highlight the chain of proof that has led to their truth, then uncertainty will cause inaction and complacency.