dadmonson

Abortion is kind of hard for me to grasp because denying something rights before it can have any is kind of crazy to me.

Just a question. Are the words Native Americans and Indians, interchangeble?

I was talking about this on a non-objectivist board, and a wanna be socialist(eventhough they won't admit it) posted the following post to me and I was wondering is this wrong? Well obviously it is but I was wondering what they presented as fact about the indians were wrong. This is a view of many "intellectuals" "Native Americans viewed the Earth as sacred. What is development to you? Their communities thrived culturally, were egalitarian, and cooperative without exploitation. The land to Native Americans was already developed, with enough resources that were to be respected. Whites did not view the land as something sacred, which was why it was easy for them to destroy it by putting all of the roads, buildings, and all of that other shit that is labeled as development, in European terms. Also, Native Americans that the land belonged to ancestors and the spirits that manifested within the Earth, and not the them. To take advantage of it would be considered criminal and abusive. The idea of owning land in itself was strange to them. But white capitalists saw the land as something that should be possessed and eventually saw no profit in preserving it, other than to establish their own interests."

Has anybody here ever seen a movie from 1978 called Midnight Express? I thought it was pretty irrational but many people might disagree with me.

HAH, atleast you don't look like an acne prone monkey(me), LOL Seriously though don't dwell on that stuff, it will just make you irrational(accept it). Also try to avoid those people that just blurt out their opinion for no reason because if you aren't truly confident words can cut like a knife, that's for sure.

HAHA, you look like Ayn Rand.

I guess I see what you all are saying. The only thing different between a man and woman is their genitalia. I was going by history. Where the ones who got recognition are predominantly male. So I guess other than sexually their is no definite difference presumably in having a romantic relationship with a man or a woman.

I'm curious what are these metaphysical traits(almost like constraints) that you speak of?

I mean, why would you want a relationship with the opposite sex then? Other than for sex. Social Conditioning?

I can't think at this time. I should of made this thread when I was more clear headed. I don't really know. Males and Females have different metaphysical traits, I'm sure. What they are I can't really tell you because I'm not really well informed in the area. I know this though, I wouldn't want to be a woman and I like being a man. I don't know if I'm going against objectivist views because I'm new.

Besides give birth. To me it seems that women's only purpose to men is sex and to give birth. Men are better physically and everything that I can think of. Also don't give me that women are better caregivers bullsh*t. If my mom was working and my dad was at home all day I'm sure he would be a heck of a better caregiver than my mom. What are the Metaphysical limitations that men have, that women do not have?

Just to add, I think everybody is special and unique but yea I know what you mean by that. My mother and my girlfriend are "special" to me.

In my uninformed opinion I think when people talk about the economy being bad, I think they are talking about how they think that their are few jobs available, people are getting laid off etc..

Obama reminds me of my communist history professor. We need more Objectivists as professors.

Can somebody make a case against communism/socialism/marxism?

I posted this topic on a hip hop forum and this is one of the answers I got... "Military/Foreign Policy-Stop invading other countries for domination and globalization. Drug epidemic-See the section about crime. Immigration-Dismantle detention centers and allow immigrants to come in as they please. Poverty-Can be eradicated with the change of economy and eradication of capitalism. Education-Change the cirriculum to the study of political, economic, and social aspects that are contributing to analyzing society and does the work of building revolutionary minds that think critically on solutions to a common problem. Crime-Eradicate the prison system, the major police force, and dismantle the police state we live in. Focus on changing the social economic and racist institutions that create crime from the begining. Health Insurance-Universal health care Plan, similar to that of Cuba's. The Economy and the hurting middle class-Eradicate capitalism. Rising fuel prices-Develop cars that run on solar energy so that capitalist imperialism into foreign countries doesn't become the useless norm. Global Warming- Cut gas emissions in the environment and use solar energy to preserve the natural resources and wealth the planet has. Honestly, there is no way to reform "Amerikkka". The only solution is to destroy it so that we can rebuild it in the form of revolutionary change. I also think that presidency to do this is impossible and must be done with the people. I'd probably dismantle big government positions and eradicate hierarchal government." My goodness gracious...

What changes would you make to make the US the GREATEST NATION? You can include issues like but in no way limited too... Military Drugs Immigration Poverty Education Crime Health Insurance The Economy and(people say) the hurting middle class Rising fuel prices Global Warming

How do you all think we can improve education in the US? People say education in the US isn't as good as it is in some other countries.

This video right here is a video of a guy singing a gospel song in church. Watch it from beginning to end. What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071127/lf_nm_...opment_index_dc Iceland best place to live, Africa worst: UN Tue Nov 27, 12:08 PM ET BRASILIA (Reuters) - Iceland has overtaken Norway as the world's most desirable country to live in, according to an annual U.N. table published on Tuesday that again puts AIDS-afflicted sub-Saharan African states at the bottom. if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['xO6ZP9j8Ymk-']='&U=13bn13dai%2fN%3dxO6ZP9j8Ymk-%2fC%3d617029.11787135.12249826.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4925923'; Rich free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland the first five but the United States slipping to 12th place from eighth last year in the U.N. Human Development Index. But the index, blending 2005 figures for life expectancy, educational levels and real per capita income, finds that all 22 countries falling into its "low human development" category are in sub-Saharan Africa, with Sierra Leone last. In 10 of these countries, two children in five will not reach the age of 40, said the compilers at the U.N. Development Program. Last year's report said HIV/AIDS had had a "catastrophic effect" on life expectancy in the region. The index ranks 175 U.N. member countries plus Hong Kong and the Palestinian territories. It does not include 17 countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, because of inadequate data. Norway had held top spot for six years but was edged into second place by Iceland this year because of new life expectancy estimates and updated figures for gross domestic product, or GDP, the report said. U.N. officials played down the significance of minor short-term shifts in the rankings including the slide in the U.S. position. They said if subsequent data for the year in question been available for last year's report, the United States would have been in 10th, not eighth place. The United States scores high on real per capita GDP, which at $41,890 is second only to that of Luxembourg ($60,228), but less well on life expectancy -- joint last in the top 26 countries, along with Denmark and South Korea, at 77.9 years. Japanese have the longest life expectancy -- 82.3 years -- and Zambians the lowest, at 40.5. The report said most countries had seen their human development index rise over the last 30 years, but in 16 it was lower than in 1990, and in three -- the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe -- lower than in 1975. Per capita GDP is 45 times higher in Iceland than in Sierra Leone. The United Nations has published its human development index every year since 1990. (Writing by Patrick Worsnip at the United Nations, editing by Cynthia Osterman)

I hate to put people in groups but a lot of black people don't vote for republicans because they view republicans as a "racist" party. They see them helpful to the rich white families but destructive to the people whose kids grow up in sh*tty schools, and whose parents just expect them to get out of high school because the parents never graduated high school and the generation before the parents didn't even go to school. They don't really have any family members or friends to look up too. It's hard to understand something unless you have been through it yourself. Many of you all have republican parents so naturally you are going to gravitate towards them and see the other side as evil.

I should of asked if it is immoral for a teacher to go out with a college student because now that I really think about it no ADULT in their right frame of mind would ever go out with someone still in High School. O Well I wonder what attracts those High School teachers to their students though? Is it the feeling of Power?

I should of made it more clearer. Yes, I am talking about students who are 16+. So you all are saying that if it didn't have the Romeo & Juliet like consequences it would be okay?

I just want to find out what you objectivist think about this. In my very narrow point of view there is nothing really wrong with it. If they are both willing. When I say male student I'm meaning a male high school student. Is it any different from if the teacher was a male and the student was a female?

I bet you be making fools out of your professors in college. I definetly need to read more Ayn Rand.