Leaderboard

Crackpots, irrationals, villainous, stupid, backwater people lacking in virtue and rationality and indeed every other kind of person would be free to associate with each other (it's called freedom of association) in a free country. Of course it is illegal for ANY group of people to conspire to commit any sort of crime, but that is obvious. As for Bigot Town, USA, THAT implies at least local government and possibly local enforcement of state and fed. law, including various branches of it under a local property taxing regime, administering and delivering services both proper and improper (mayor's office, police, enforced garbage collection, local schools, fire department, etc.). Since the only proper role of government is to protect rights, and since they are the only ones with a monopoly on the legal use of force, having anyone in government who is a crackpot, irrational, villainous, stupid, or a backwater person lacking in virtue and rationality, let alone having the entire local government being made up of people like that, represents a grave risk to the violation of individual rights and very likely would constitute an improper government which constantly violates individual rights. A proper and free society does not condone improper government or the violation of individual rights. Objectivism does not accept a system of anarchy, or competing governments, (Anarcho-capitalism is right out), and also rejects Libertarianism as a foundation for politics. Government must act properly and individual rights are absolute. To the extent any person or persons pretends to act as government but exceed its proper role and violate individual rights, by purported law and/or action, those people are acting outside of their proper government role, and it would be moral for others (State or Fed of a free country), acting properly as THE government to step in and ensure protection of individual rights by removing those guilty of violating rights and setting up a proper government.

It is difficult for me to say if it was a lie. But it's not transparent, when transparency is important to any kind of relationship. Friends or otherwise. On the other hand, being transparent doesn't have to mean telling everything immediately. When it comes to a huge conflict that would shake up your life, you might hesitate telling someone else so you can take the time to figure out what to say. Not to say that the girl in this case acted entirely well. I'm saying that these are redeemable moral errors. Sometimes people come along where your prior commitments should be given up. Unfortunately, this is where people go wrong. It's difficult to navigate. You might fear that she could "easily" do it again. But sometimes when a person does something wrong, they are less likely to repeat it. That is, if they acknowledge what they did wrong. The key factor I think is, how much room will you give people for mistakes? The girl wanting to kiss Ben, or developing a crush him, was not the mistake; the mistake was simply not telling her current boyfriend (for some people, kissing is a very ambiguous line). Our information is limited, maybe the brief period of time is a sign of impulsivity. But it also might be a willingness to make the hard decisions, even if the method of following through the decision wasn't the best. But I agree that boundaries are important. Expectations starting now, and making them clear, without changing them later. This sounds like a good way to find the type of person they want to be, and can succeed at being. That's how you can prevent cases where someone turns out to be a liar, an abuser, a drug addict, a lazy bum, or goes back on their promises. It's how you can maintain relationships with people who have made mistakes, without worrying that every single instance of a moral error is increasing probability that they will do the wrong thing. When it comes to people I've known a few weeks, I give them some leeway, even more so if I'm extra fond of them and in a short time learned a lot about them.

Through several threads, and the replies I've gotten to sharing certain personal experiences, I've come to realize that my experiences may be atypical. But I've generally had pleasant romantic relationships... And my experience is this: that women must be dealt with as individuals. I've never not complimented a woman (or complimented her, for that matter) according to some strategy, or because some supposed pick-up artist thinks that women are reducible to a pattern. I've treated women in this respect the way I treat anyone or anything, and have paid compliments freely when they are warranted, and refrain from them when they are not. Honesty has been my one "strategy," and it has worked out fine in my best estimation. Could I have had more sex over the course of my life (with certain kinds of women), had I immersed myself in strategies and such designed to seduce those kinds of women? Perhaps. Would that pursuit have made my life better? I sincerely doubt it, and doubted it at the time (which accounts in large part for why I knowingly avoided that path). I'm not sure that it would have left me as the man I am today, a man who is capable of loving and being loved by my wife in the manner that we have achieved. And that's a sad thought. And today I am extraordinarily happy with my wife, and I'll report that I pay her compliments regularly. It's rare that I see her and am not moved to pay such a compliment, so really my usual "strategic" consideration is just not to bore her by repeating myself constantly. But if I'm looking at the most beautiful, most wonderful woman I've ever known -- and if I'm struck by that fact constantly, over years and years and years -- what am I supposed to do about it? For her part, she's reported that she loves the compliments I pay her. But then, she's not very well-versed in seduction literature, so perhaps she just doesn't yet understand her feminine self yet?