Is it okay to criticize "The Imitation Game"?
I am losing "followers" and "friends." Wonder what you thing? "Even" Objectivists disagree, here.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
That said, Turing was a homosexual and prosecuted for that behavior. Said behavior being illegal at the time. You can not tell the whole story of Turing and leave that out. And since he killed himself by biting a poisoned apple, that is a segment too dramatic to leave out of a movie.
Criticize it all you want to.
We do still have freedom of speech in this country although the left is doing their best to restrict it to only speech they agree with.
While I enjoyed the movie, I felt very critical and very off put that a lot of the facts were very wrong and the realistic aspect of the movie was horrible! He would not be sitting in the police office telling the cop ALL he did during the war! I KNOW it's a dramatic representation, but still.... be truthful! Because now people, children will go through and think all that was true. Well, there were more than Turing involve and the machine was called Bombe.
anyways. I will stop ranting for no reason :)
That promoted me some time back to research the dude (not) responsible.
Forgot his name; but in real life, Mel Gibson's character did not kill him. A great hand-to-hand choreographed fight, though!
That Brit officer died some time after the Revolutionary War in England.
Rand never had any patience with homosexuality or bisexuality. Even Branden did not treat the subject. He admitted he knew not nearly enough about it to risk commenting on its etiology or its significance.
Your question, however, is incomplete. What kind of objections are you getting?
I reject, by the way, the biogenetic behavioral determinism that is the excuse that male homosexuals usually offer for their behavior.
I suggest sexual preferences are far more malleable than people suppose, especially in women. Feminists have known this for years. And in the Eighties and Nineties, at least, they were actively recruiting women into a female-homosexual lifestyle and a politic of "abjur[ing] tyrannic Man," to paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan. Even today, I suspect a considerable proportion of women, especially teens and young adults, are bisexual, and actively considering which way to go. Sappho of Lesbos, I am convinced, was bisexual, as the surviving fragments of her work, as quoted by Will Durant in "The Life of Greece," show.
I further remind the body that the prevalence of homosexuality, at least among men, in ancient Greece reached fifty percent. This when young men had to agree to "service" older men as "tuition" for being taught rhetoric. Which was the ancient Greek equivalent of law school.
As for "excuse that male homosexuals usually offer for their behavior, " you can be sure that I have never offered an excuse to anyone. No excuse is required as it's really nobody's business. I also find your startling lack of knowledge about homosexuality to be tedious. What excuse do you offer for your stupendous ignorance?
I don't question your choice. I do question the nasty habit some people have--hopefully outside this community--of forcing others to affirm that choice.
Hint: the right to associate includes the right not to associate, for any good reason, bad reason, or no reason.
Regarding "forcing others to affirm that choice [sic]," I have no need of your approval or anyone else's. And your condescending explanation of the right to associate is insulting. I can assure you that you are the exact kind of @$$4073 with whom I would spend a great deal of time not associating.
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.
But I was speaking of anti-discrimination laws. You don't want to suggest supporting those, do you? They would violate the central tenets of Objectivist political philosophy, which emphasized liberty.
Hate crime legislation or anything like it is an abomination.
In 1983, Branden wrote that Rand was "absolutely and totally ignorant” about homosexuality. Branden added that he saw her perspective "as calamitous, as wrong, as reckless, as irresponsible, and as cruel, and as one which I know has hurt too many people who ... looked up to her and assumed that if she would make that strong a statement she must have awfully good reasons."[10]
And the reference: "Ayn Rand and Homosexuality" Paul Varnell, Chicago Free Press
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!
criticism of everything? -- j
To answer your question; Yes, it is OK to criticize the IG.
The movie had an interesting beginning, which led the viewer to expect to see more about the world-changing nature of Turing's advances, but the last part was much too focused on his deviant sexuality, with only a hint of what was achieved.
For example, what to make of the movie title, "The imitation game" ? Only alluded to in the first part, but no real life example given later on, especially with modern systems being more and more able to pass it (see "Eugene Gootsman" last summer, which is very, very close)... When the end credit rolls, I somehow doubt that most of viewer will have any idea of what it is.
Let's face it : it appears this movie was cattering too much to the SJW crowd and almost pushing Turing's real genius under the rug.
What a waste...
His sexual preferences and actions had to have been known. It follows they overlooked it until his usefulness decreased enough to discard him.
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)
It's very kind of you, though, to offer your pity for my condition. Man deserves condemnation for his beliefs or his actions, not for something he has no more control over than the color of his eyes.
Cor. 6:9-11: “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men; will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were..."
Also this: Romans 1:26,27 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,..."
This in a "Chrisitan" scriptural sense indicates choice.
Now was this a crime that "man's" government should be prosecuting. I think this is something that each person must decide for themselves and the ONLY proper individual to dole out any compassion or punishment would be God himself.
In the biblical "Christian" congregation, nobody was stoned for being gay, but were expelled from the congregation until such time as they "chose" to stop practicing those behaviors, i.e. repent which means turn around from:, refer back to 1 Cor. 6:9 - 11.
And to save you some effort, you are referring to Deuteronomy, and the passage you are specifically referring to was if the women does NOT cry out, i.e. consensual. If she does cry out HE is to be put to death. Keep reading ALL these laws in context. You may learn something.
The following source says nothing about the woman "crying out," but only that harsher penalties applied if the woman raped was betrothed or married (death), and lesser penalties if she wasn't betrothed (marrying her or paying a fine, at her father's discretion). http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-... . Do you have another source that translates those passages differently?
If the Father did NOT consent to the "fine" as it were, then the punishment of death would have been imposed on the offender.
Again you have to look at the Law in ancient Israel in its entirety not just a clipping of one verse.
In light of that fact, then, your quotations from one of the most poorly written pieces of pure fantasy in the entire world are meaningless here.
That's a can of worms, but I don't think it's true. IMHO you can be an Objectivist and a religious moderate. My knowledge of Objectivism, though, comes only from reading AS and Fountainhead, so I could easily be wrong.
That book lays out the foundations of Objectivism from start to finish. I failed to find the quote I was looking for, it isn't the kind of book you can speed read. Or it might have been in another of her books.
Not all here are atheists. I for instance am not.
Rand was an atheist, but Atheism is not a requirement for objectivism. That is an assumption.
Your logic is not only fraudulent, but an outright lie. Your logic is no different than saying,
Everything I say is a lie, but if everything I say is a lie, I must be telling the truth but I cannot be telling the truth if everything I say is a lie.
Just because Ayn Rand was a devout atheist does not now nor ever will by definition make all Objectivists atheists. Just because YOU are an obvious atheist does not in itself mean everyone else is also.
The biggest problem declaring yourself an atheist is that with no moral ground other than your self to base actions on, that makes EVERYTHING permissible.
Within Atlas Shrugged, there is a definite morality that does not make everything permissible. The moochers and looters like everything to be acceptable and permissible which is one tool they have in the fight against the producers.
The Bible in many ways supports objectivism, both in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, there are numerous passages describing the vile nature of the moocher and looter, and the value and virtue of the producer.
One Example is in the Old Testament in a prophesy by Isaiah that describes the world God intended.
This is talking about the "New Heavens and New Earth God promised to provide for his people.
Isa 65:21 And they will be building houses and living in them; planting vine-gardens and getting the fruit of them.
Isa 65:22 They will no longer be building for the use of others, or planting for others to have the fruit: for the days of my people will be like the days of a tree, and my loved ones will have joy in full measure in the work of their hands.
Isa 65:23 Their work will not be for nothing, and they will not give birth to children for destruction; for they are a seed to whom the Lord has given his blessing, and their offspring will be with them.
Sure sounds like the Objectivist version of how we should all live.
We OWN the product of our labor with no looters or moochers to take what we produce. We will all trade value for value, product for product in a fair trade between consenting parties.
This is not my opinion, it is stated plainly for all to see in Ayn Rand's own words. She does not imply it, she states it outright in plain English. You may continue to rail against me for as long as you like and make absurd claims about what atheists believe, but that will not make you any less incorrect.
Or are you saying Objectivism is in itself Atheism? Or is Objectivism a logic based analysis based on Rational Self Interest.
So sorry to disappoint you however, your devout believe in Atheism, is NOT a basis for defining Objectivism. Here is a clip from the Atlas Society regarding this same topic. Please read carefully that REASON is the key and "Blind Faith" is where the issue is. However my belief in God has NOTHING to do with "Blind Faith" but what I see as the reasonable evidence of a Creator.
http://www.atlassociety.org/religion_obj...
There is a profound difference, then, between Objectivism and traditional religions in their respective views of the world. But this is not the primary conflict. The primary conflict is reason versus faith as methods of adopting one's worldview in the first place.
Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge. Blind faith, by contrast, consists in belief not based on evidence, or based on such spurious forms of "evidence" as revelation and authority. Faith is essentially an arbitrary exercise of the mind, a willful credulity based on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence, a desire for certainty without the scrupulous cognitive effort required to achieve rational certainty. Faith cannot substitute for reason as a means of knowledge, nor can it supplement reason. Reason is incompatible with arbitrary procedures of any kind.
If we accept reason as a method, then the substantive issues that differentiate Objectivism from most religions can be debated openly and rationally, and Objectivists can respect those who differ about what the evidence proves. But there can be no compromise about reason itself as a method.
For some people, religion is not primarily a belief about the world but rather a belief in spiritual values: a belief that a meaningful human life requires more than material possessions and achievements. Objectivism holds that "spiritual values" can be defined in secular terms, and on that basis agrees that they are of vital importance to fulfillment and happiness. Spiritual values are those pertaining to the needs of human consciousness, arising from the human capacity for reason, creativity, free will, and self-awareness. These needs include self-esteem, love, art, and philosophy (a comprehensive view of existence), among others. Achieving these values in one's life is no less important than providing for one's material needs and achieving worldly success.
Objectivism is an idealistic philosophy that affirms and celebrates the grandeur of the human capacity for achievement and heroism. In this respect, as Ayn Rand noted, it provides a secular meaning for such religious concepts as exaltation, worship, reverence, and the sacred. "Such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling.… What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal."
So again your statement that all Objectivists are atheists is a false statement and made even more inaccurate by making the false claim it is an absolute.
So taking "Reason" as the total basis, while you cannot PROVE that there is no God, I cannot PROVE there is. However you cannot PROVE gravity, you cannot see it, tough it or feel it, you can however observe the effects of gravity, and devise mathematical formulas to confirm the effects of gravity. Faith, not Blind faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for and the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld.
I have faith that if I drop and apple from 200ft up it will fall and be crushed . I do not have to drop to know this, I can see it based on the evident demonstration of reality, I.e. gravity (the force that makes things fall, the thing I cannot see or touch or even measure.)
I can measure water in a glass, but I can only measure gravity by observing OTHER effects.
"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.
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.
Nor was she bound by Christian sexual mores. Nor were her philosophies very "Christian" (they certainly did not align with Matthew 25:40).
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?"
Load more comments...