dadmonson

Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was disgusting. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a "gay" gene. It was even common practice in old time Greece for boys to have sex with men. It is because of the enviroment I believe not because of genetics

Yes this is what I ment. I would say though that the philosophy itself can bring people together if you follow it's principles but I don't have time to explain it all, right now. Maybe someone on here has experienced what I am talking about and will post about it. Also how come not that many people on this forum are replying to my question? It is a simple question really. If I am going to do a survey I think I will need more people, Haha.

I heard that objectivism brings many couples together... I'm doing a survey to see how many couples on this forum have gotten together because of Objectivism. Did it bring you all together? Where did you meet your spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend? I'll start first, I met my ex girlfriend at my old job at McDonalds. She was my coworker and she was my best lady friend. After awhile of knowing her I decided to ask her out on a date, and she became my girlfriend. We went strong for about 6 months. This was before I had read any of Ayn Rand's books so Objectivism didn't really play a role in our relationship.

Unusually intelligent at a young age? ehh, I don't know about that. I saw on the show Good Morning America where they were featuring a kid that was in college at the age of 11. The news anchors were calling him a genius and all that good stuff but when they asked him about what he does in a day's time he said that all he does all day is study and do work. He doesn't watch TV, play video games or anything. I think as long as you aren't retarded and you start at a young enough age(For brainwashing, I guess you could say), you are probably capable of "becoming" a genius.

Could it be that the decline in skill is directly related to the fall of art form popular culture? Artists used to be as popular as movie stars well into the 20th century. But as the envelope of what is considered art began to expand, the galleries became filled with ready mades, crafts, and other crap that is deemed art just because the person who made the "work" has some emotional / intellectual / metaphysical explanation for it. I am a formalist by no means, but at the same time, art should be able to stand by itself without any explanation in order for it to be appreciated as beautiful.

Overrated: Independence Day Underrated: AI

I can't really add to the discussion too much but I will say that I thought it was okay. I just wasn't blown away like some of you all were. Also for some reason I didn't think it was believable for that guy in the movie to be so smart. Another thing that wasn't too my liking was that there were way too many convenient moments for the good guys to find this believable. For instance when the 'bad' guy sees the girl staring and concentrating on the screen of the computer. Shouldn't he have enough sense to know that she wasn't looking at a freaking screensaver? He didn't have enough sense to check the screen while she was sitting there?. That is just one example there are many though. All throughout the movie the bad guys were unbelievably dumb and gullible.

If Ayn Rand was alive would she be your ideal lady? Would you try to pursue a romantic relationship with her?

I don't really have too much of a personality preference, I don't even think I have a physical preference. I guess it's whatever works for her. But, if I had to get right down to the core of the reason for me being attracted to a lady, it would be her, rationality, definetely.

I always assumed that the Civil War had something to do with slavery. If it wasn't then why did black people fight for the Union and give their lives in it?

If there is too much problems with gasoline. Can't we use diesel fuel instead?

I think people are "happy" or "content" just because they are indeed "happy" or "content" people. There are blind people that are "happy" or get "happy". I think this website is socialist propaganda. I wish I could debunk their idea.

Obama supports individual gun rights By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago MILWAUKEE - Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms. Obama said he spoke to Northern Illinois University's president Friday morning by phone and offered whatever help his Senate office could provide in the investigation and improving campus security. The Democratic presidential candidate spoke about the Illinois shooting to reporters while campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin. The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights. "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference. He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind. Five people, including the shooter, were killed during Thursday's ambush inside a lecture hall. Authorities said the two guns used were purchased legally less then a week ago. "Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities," Obama said. "That is our duty as Americans." Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns. At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution," Obama said. Obama also: • Said Clinton now is attacking him for watering down a bill to regulate the nuclear industry that she also voted for and touted on her Web site. He suggested her attack was made out of desperation because his campaign is ahead. "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he said. "But I think this kind of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for." • Seemed to hedge on his statement last year that he would accept public funds if his Republican opponent did as well. Likely GOP nominee John McCain has said he would adhere to such an agreement, but Obama was not willing to make such a firm commitment. "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure that our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we're willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward," Obama said. "But it would be presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it and I'm not the nominee yet." • Blamed problems with the economy on a "failure of leadership in Washington" that includes decisions by the Bush administration on taxes and the Clinton administration on trade. He criticized "politicians (who) tout NAFTA as a success when they're in the White House and then call it a mistake when they're on the campaign trail." • Said he has not considered whether he would give up his Senate seat if he wins the presidential nomination. In my uninformed opinion, this guy seems awfully wishy washy.

Is their an existance of natural intellect?

Hillary to me is kind of a hippie. Hippies weren't very rational were they? I don't think so. http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a258/Dan...30/clintons.jpg Also I read that Obama admired Ronald Reagan. I guess that doesn't add anything to the discussion but I just thought I'd type that.

What does she mean by "masculinity"? I guess I'll have to read more.

Yes, and its even been discussed on this forum before that Ayn Rand called herself a Male Chauvinist.

Have you ever thought about medication, adrock3215? You might have ADD. I'm on some meds to help me focus better, and it has made a huge difference in my concentration, as far as listening to monotonous teachers, and studying subjects that I'm not interested in. More people are on them than you probably think.

I'm saying the European's philosophy was no better than the Indians. Europeans weren't individualist. Did the Europeans build this... http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/4919251...a66a36f.jpg?v=0 The Native Americans were much smarter than some people give them credit for. They had to have some kind of underlying philosophy that enabled them to keep things going for all that time.

Well some people would say the indians culture was superior. The Europeans were tribal just like the indians. Kings and Queens? They just had superior "technology" and weapons.

Well do you have children? I don't either.

Wait, Ayn Rand was an Aquarius???? I knew it, nah J/P, LOL

Value most??? More than yourself???? More than your kids??????

I think you could look at David's post. "The burden of proof lies with the rights-restricter, and the benefit of the doubt should lie with the individual wishing to exercise her rights." A fetus is not an individual person and it cannot wish to exercise its rights whatsoever.

Heck yea, in interviews the interviewer, you could tell had an agenda. They would be grilling her but she had an answer for everything right on the spot!!!! She didn't take no time to ponder it, she never seemed like she was intimidated or pissed off, she just showed the interviewer and the audience the superiority of her philosophy and she actually seemed like she was kind of enjoying it in the process, while the interviewer would be all pissed off seemed like. Seeing her in a debate is awe inspiring, for me atleast. Yeah, this was an idiotic thread