GoldenSilence33

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1810019-Uprising Here is the link, I don't really want to re-format the whole thing again. It is a pretty dark story about a slave master and how he loses everything, my first attempt at a dystopian short story of this length. I hope you enjoy, and tell me what you think! Thanks -GS33

I want to thank everyone who replied. I am quite sure that I don't have sleep apnea, and still unsure if I have bipolar or something else related to depression and mood swings. I'm also fairly sure that it's not related to my age, due to the fact that some of the symptoms were quite prominent in my childhood, such as a really bad temper. I took two online self-diagnosis tests, and they said: 1) "Based on your responses, there's a strong chance you have adult ADHD. To know for sure, you need to see a doctor for a proper evaluation and diagnosis." 2)"It is highly likely that you are presently suffering from adult attention deficit disorder, according to your responses on this self-report questionnaire. You should not..." This is indication enough for me to seek professional help. Thanks again for your support.

I'm 18 years old, and I'm kind of confused... I have been suffering from depression and mood swings for months now, and in this forum I read that someone else who was depressed had ADHD. Well, I looked at a list of common symptoms online, and 13 out of 14 symptoms(http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/adhd/notjustachildhooddisorder.htm) are symptoms that sounded very familiar to me... I don't know if this is coincidence or I am just imagining this, but I am kind of reluctant to go to a doctor with my parents to get diagnosed, because I feel like I might be imagining this as an excuse for laziness or something... My brother has ADHD, so it is possible, but I thought I would ask people here first, seeing as there are some who have ADHD/ADD. My symptoms are: concentration problems forgetfulness and poor short-term memory lack of organisation problems with creating and maintaining routines lack of self-discipline impulsive behaviour depression low self-esteem restless mind restlessness poor time management impatience and frustration poor social skills and making inappropriate remarks(not this one) feelings of underachievement. The thing is, most of them are only clear when I have been alone for extended periods of time, such as now(on vacation). Is it possible I am imagining this?

Well, I'm not sure the welfare state is the primary concern, more the "radical", violent nature of the Muslim minorities, or the perception that that is the way things are. I do think the welfare state contributes to the anger of the majority population, but the violence is a result of the will to protect internal labor markets to prevent competition between Germans and foreign workers, at least in the case of Germany. Maybe the minority Muslim groups feel oppressed to a certain extent by the natives, and find solace in their own communities. This is all speculation on my part of course.

I live in Germany, and so this is an important topic for me, especially with the shootings in Norway, and I want to see if I have it right, as far as what is happening, what should be done, and what is being done. Many Europeans feel threatened by the many forms of Muslim immigration. They feel their culture will not survive, unless some measures(for some, drastic measures) are taken. This can be partly contributed to the difference of family sizes between Middle-Eastern and European families, and the feeling that Europeans are slowly becoming minorities in their "own countries". It can also be contributed to the violent nature of some middle-eastern Muslims living in Europe, which is constantly pushed by the media. In Belgium it's the large Moroccan population, in Germany the Turkish population, and in other countries, other populations that are feared and somewhat hated. It seems to be a vicious circle. The Muslim populations live in relatively secluded communities, refusing to learn the language at all, or if they do then "improperly". In short, the general perception is that they refuse to integrate into the native communities, as they "should", because they are foreigners in these countries, and thus it is not the Europeans that should "bend to the will of the Muslims", but rather the other way around. Because the Europeans perceive the unwillingness of the Muslim "foreigners"(most are first or second generation official Europeans, but still of the ethnic backgrounds of various Middle-Eastern countries), they feel attacked, and helpless, due to the tolerant government policies that are in play. This mutual hatred is slowly escalating, as more ignorance and violence spreads, followed by an unwillingness to cooperate or learn from one another. Racial stereotypes are common, and fuels the hatred. This is how I perceive things as happening in Europe today. To give you an example, I will relate two stories that stood out, told to me by native Germans, and native Belgians. The German story is this: Turks in Germany are sometimes referred to as "Kanacken", as Americans referred to Germans as "Krauts" and French as "Frogs". There is a low German dialect originating from the Turkish communities reffered to as "Kanack". Well, in one school in a large Turkish/Muslim community(in Germany), German children were beat up by "minority" children, and forced to speak this low German dialect. This understandably evoked much anger in the German community. Apparently in Antwerp, Belgium 90% of crimes are committed by Morroccans. When they take the city tram, they do not pay, but beat up the driver if the driver causes trouble, because they don't pay. The Morroccans immigrate to Belgium, then once there, their whole family(cousins, aunts, uncles, etc) also some how moves there. Many of them live off of social programs. I am not saying this is how it is, I am saying this is how things are perceived to be, which is far more dangerous, and far more difficult to refute. Personally, I think violence should be punished with violence, no matter the nationality or origin. It is not about a people, but rather about a large group of individuals causing trouble. The individuals should be punished, not the people. The problem with this, espescially in Germany, is the fear of being branded Nazis, of being called intolerant racists for acts against minorities. This fear is only making the conflict worse, and in the long run, will probably result in it becoming the truth. Instead of them being branded as such and it being false, they will be branded as such and it will be true. Perhaps they should crack down more on immigration? I don't know. However, right now nothing is being done by politicians, which adds to the feeling of hopelessness. As long as crime is punished, the bad apples removed from the barrel so to speak, I do feel they will integrate properly, even if it does take 50 years or longer. There already are individuals that are "integrating", and doing it well. My German friends do have friends of Turkish descent, and they don't even care that they are Muslims, even though they seem to with the violent ones. I apologize if this is a rant of sorts, but this is to give everyone the general idea of how things are playing out here, and my thoughts on what should be done. Please make your thoughts known, be they solutions, contradictions to my portrayal, whatever. We are all here to learn. Thank you.

I was wondering if anyone has achieved true happiness in the Objectivist sense of the word, and if so, have you been able to sustain that happiness? Thanks -GS

I like rationality, and with that comes honesty. Despite that, I want her to be able to love in the warm, tender sense of the word.

He was a christian fundamentalist nationalist. As of now there are 94 confirmed dead. His name is Anders Behring Breivik, age 32. Apparently, he dressed up as a police man... It is truly a tragedy.

I think a lot of people nowadays in Western culture are just lazy... They don't feel the need to improve themselves, so they sit around all day playing video games, watching TV, drinking or doing drugs(nothing against these if in moderation). We are turning into a culture of couch-potatoism. Entertainment over education. This makes me sad.

If you are referring to Alexander the Great, he had great respect for the Persians, even going so far as to wear their garments sometimes.

Basically my question is if there is an objectivist justification for playing video games. I can't see Howard Roark, Henry Rearden, Dagny Taggart, or any Rand giants gaming. Roark said the meaning of life is your work. Wouldn't this be contrary to gaming? I'm very curious as to your replies, as I am a casual gamer and I see myself as somewhat of an Objectivist. Thanks

I voted for the Persians (or the Achaemenid Empire to be more exact). They had a uniform monetary system, along with an official language, great infrastructure(postal systems, road systems, way stations), notable architectural achievements such as the city of Persepolis, the Qanat water management system, and the canal connecting Zaqaziq to Suez, along with the one connecting the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. There was religious freedom, and equal rights for all citizens. You have to admit, these were great accomplishments for 500 BC.

Ok, fair enough. Thank you for clarifying that for me. What is still unclear is how large( geographically )the governments should be. Do you agree with federal governments? Also, are we talking career military or more militia-type forces? Because, to be honest, while standing militaries may be better for protection, don't you think they are easily exploited? Thanks for welcoming me to the community

I have the same understanding of minarchy, but you are still using compulsion as a means to freedom, even if it is only police, courts, and military. "Do this the way we want, or we will punish you. The way we want is right though, see all the benefits?" If you agree with 99% of the laws, you still object to the 1% that someone is holding over your head. Now, if it is justified or not is debatable. Centralizing violence just seems dangerous to me. By organizations I do mean government-like agencies not funded by taxes, but through contracts. I hate to get into concrete examples because it is hard for a single person to predict how anarchy would work. I might not be able to find a solution to a problem the free market would normally fix. This makes it very abstract, and it seems better to argue with ethics. It seems unethical to me, in any case, to force someone to pay for anything without their consent. Maybe the solution is to mix anarchy with minarchy? Regions of anarchy near regions of minarchy?

Hello, this is my first post on OO.net and I was just wondering what the Objectivist objections to anarchy, or anarcho-capitalism in my case, are. The idea of a minarchist state to me seems comparable to the idea of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead (Part IV Chapter 6 first paragraph) that through compulsion one gains freedom. He says "Traffic lights restrain your freedom to cross a street whenever you wish. But this restraint gives you freedom from being run over by a truck." This seems to me like a minarchist, or statist in general, concept. Shouldn't people use reason to know to look left and right before crossing a street? In the same way it seems to me that people should be able to use reason in determining which organizations are vital to their well-being, and to fund these themselves, as opposed to being coerced into paying for them, along with some they might not require. If you do not understand, please specify what and I will attempt to clarify. Thank you for your time. -Goldensilence33