Megan Robinson

When I said "website" I meant the one from which the book list was taken, not the forum. Furthermore, many people (obviously) consider Nietzche to have given birth to the Nazi's ideals (even though he died in 1900, which I was aware of, thank you). These people are mostly misinformed and react strongly to Neitzche without ever having read him. And Yay! You, too can take quotes out of context!

The Nazis loved Neitzche because his sister Elizabeth kept track of all of his note books after he went crazy. Elizabeth was a Nazi and let them pick and choose out of context quotes to support their ideals. They mostly just liked "Thus Spake Zarathusrta" because of the style in which it was written. It had a biblical prose, which the Nazis liked, because that meant that it was easier to take slogans from the work out fo context. It's great that this website tries to make it seem like Neitzche was a Nazi. In fact, he rejected racisim. But that doesn't stop anyone from making misinformed blanket assertions.

Hi, I, too, was raised a Jehovah's Witness. It's great that you were too, so I won't have to clarify the jargon. I was essentially raised by my grandparents on both sides; my mother and father are divorced and both disfellowshipped. I lived with my grandparents on my mother's side since I was 16 for about two years and my grandfather was the Presiding Overseer of the local congregation. I was studying with an aunt (who I was very close to) and had become an unbaptized publisher when I started having questions about he origins of man. It all started with Genesis 3, where Jehovah doesn't realize that Adam has eaten from the tree until he notices that Adam is wearing clothes. From there I started questioning everything: If God created everything, including all concepts and manifestations of ideals, then he must have created evil and planted it in the serpent to spread to man, therefore, Jehovah is soley responsible for all of the suffering and death in the world, and why would he not want man to have knowledge of good and bad, what was he hiding? Granted, at the time I was a philosophic mess. I didn't discover Objectivism for another year. I also decided it was a good idea to abandon the religion when I noticed some creepy similarities between "The Society" and Orwell's immortal Big Brother. The more I thought about The Watchtower, the more I realized that all of the literature and vast volumes of reference material was obvious brainwashing. I also realized that any ideology that prohibited you from exploring other ideas has something to hide; if it isn't true it seems like I would be smart enough to figure it out myself (as you may know the classic JW reference, 1 Corinthians 15:33 "Bad associations spoil useful habits"). I alway thought that it was a little silly that I couldn't talk to anyone who wasn't JW for fear that I would be corrupted. I'm sorry, this was not intended as a Witness bashing post. It's only that I rarely meet an Objectivist who shares my background and it's good to finally share some of those memories. I. personally, have come a long way since then and would be happy to help with any questions.

For starters, kiddo, you shouldn't post things on the internet you usually wouldn't want people to know. Also, you're a little misguided. Let me ask you a few questions: What is the purpose of sex? Is it just physical pleasure, or the celebration of the achievement of value? What kind of men are aroused by women of low moral character? Who are the type aroused by a woman's body instead of her mind? Obviously, one cannot come to know a woman's character through a pronographic medium, thats kind of the point. Its a way to let those too low to achieve the value of romantic love experience some kind of arousal. The person who takes pleasure in pornography is the same as a person taking money without earning it, its an ill-gotten value, one that hasn't been achieved but taken. In short, it's a cop-out. A person of high moral stature would not view pornography. It violates the very nature of sex by making it impersonal, why look for an intelligent lady when you can have a moronic bimbo who puts out? It's the same question.

Hi Andromeda, Remmeber me? I was the jerk from your last thread. Sorry about all that, now that I see you REALLY want to imporve yourself, I have to say I'm a little proud. Good job! This makes me happy. Anyway, I think with all the mind power in this forum we can help you solve your problem. I think it would help if you started thinking superlatively as opposed to comparatively. First of all, what do you want from life? Why do you want it? How will you get it? I know this all seems unrelated, but once you answer these questions, I think you'll understand your problem more completely. A big one is: What is life to you? And when you give your answers do you really mean them? I think a larger view of what life is and what you want from it will help you establish a better self esteem. It may not be an instant fix, but it may be a good place to start.

I think one basic tenent of happiness, according its nature is that a person must make themselves happy. Objectivism itself cannot make anyone happy, its whole purpose is to provide one with a correct system of integrating life and thus living it so that he may make himself happy. You can't expect to "convert" (what a word) and then see the light and live thus forward in eternal joy. You must use the knowledge you've gained to do those things that will provide for your happiness. If you're not happy, its your fault, not Objectivism's.

What is it you want Andromeda? Do you want us to tell you its ok to have non chalant sex with women, and tell you how to better achieve it? You keep saying that anyone here who's disagreed with you has clearly misunderstood. But you have stated clearly that what you want is just sex. No realationship, you just want to get "laid". You come to us, who profess a philosophy you respect, to give you advice on seducing women. If this is not your purpose then, please, state it explicitly. Let me start by stating this: Ladies (yes, we still exist) cannot be seduced. Ladies are values to be achieved by men who deserve them. You can sleep with any whore in an attempt to satisfy yourself, but as Rand says in the embodiment of Francisco, you will not be fufilled, because you won't have earned it. Dagny Taggart is a lady, Ayn Rand was a lady, many of the women here are ladies, any woman who has sex with a man for fun without feeling any kind of love or deep respect for him is a whore. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to put it kindly, it is what it is. You may have known some women who had casual sex with men, that doesn't mean its ok. It's equally immoral for men and women. If this is the type of woman you want, fine. Don't come to an Objectivist Forum looking for sanctions. Sex, in its proper sense does not exist without love. If you wish to have more sex without loving someone, yes, you are a monster. If you want advice on how to have a woman fall in love with you, ok. I'll help you. But if you just want to make her think you love her to use her, then please do all of us women a favor and lock yourself up. We don't want you. If you are sincere in wanting an actual respectable woman as a companion (a lady, if you will) I'll tell you this: Women (despite what feminists say) love strength. Not just physical strength, but most importatntly, strength of character. You've said you're a sensitive guy, which is a plus, but not a winner. The poetry writing, sweet guy is a great friend. He listens, he shares and understands feelings. But when it comes to a romantic partner, a guy who has a set of values he never waivers from, and whose honesty and intelligence are emminent, is always attractive. A man's posture in itself states a lot about his character. How he holds himself and behaves in his environment. Rand knew this. Notice how she describes Galt and Roark's postures and mannerisms. I guess its pride. The attractive part of a man's poture and manneisms is his pride in himself. He is proud of everything he is and everything he stands for. Keep in mind that this advice is only good for respectable women. If all you want is sex, you're on your own, because most women who just want sex have no rational set of values. They are more or less all over the place. They'll get in bed with you because you're wearing a certain color shoes, or your hair just has that "look". And if thats what you want, you don't belong here anyway.

Thank you Kevin for stating what I was thinking all along. Why is it that we feel we have to be so generous to those who are obviosly not rational, who come here and spit trash at us to analyze. NO ONE who comes here and asks for advice on how to get women to go to bed with him without any kind of emotional attatchment deserves any kind of reasoning or generous response. As an objectivist, but foremost a woman, I can say to you, Andromeda, you are disgusting. You don't deserve any woman's time, and any woman you do "lay" will essentially amount to a whore. You cannot have a respectable intelligent woman without some kind of relationship. You say that you know Atlas Shrugged by heart, yet you seem to have forgotten one of the most profound speeches in the book, the explaination Fransisco gives Hank for having acted as a play-boy for years. Fransisco condenms men like you. Men who seek wealth without earning it, and sex without earning the respect of a valuable woman. I'm sorry to be such a jerk, but you really deserve it.

Moose, I had the same general type of reaction the first time I read The Foutainhead during the scene in which Steven Mallory attempts to take the life of Ellsworth Toohey, this, of course, is near the beginning of the book. Later, as it has been suggested here, the philosophic context of the action taken with the actions and premises of the lot of charachters in the story cleared up the confusion I felt earlier. This is what I feel to be one of the masterful aspects of Rand's writing. She sets her readers up, and by doing so exploits (if you will) the deviant sentiments felt by the readers in the beginning. My boyfriend's younger brother is reading The Fountainhead now, and for a while he thought that Toohey was the good-guy, until the Stoddard Temple scene. Seeing the nature of a charachter that you once though good revealed makes the philosophic point that much more explicit. Its just a powerful literary device, and a good one. And on a more philosphic note: Your first three objections have to do with the nature of rights, if you are honestly interested in why Rand's ideal characters would commit such actions read the section in OPAR devoted to politics, or Locke's Treatise on Government . The first to discover more of what Rand's philosophy says about such an issue, and the second to more generally educate yourself.

GC, Wow! You speak my language. I never got into FX, but DX, OO, PO, and LD were definately my events. My partner (known to you all as lowentropy) did CX, and FX in high school. Your idea of inverting *conventional* logic is an excellent idea. Although come of your idea are a little extreme for a debate round (in that it would be difficult to convince a judge in an hour), I did like your transportation privatation suggestion. I'll think about that a little more, it may just be workable. Jennifer, (you have my name in your avatar) It's a little harder than looking in a newspaper (that was my first attempt). The problem is that if a debater is not forced to debate a subject, she'll keep wandering around until she finds something to sink her teeth into. Thank you both for your suggestions.

Good day, I have recetly joined the Parlimentary debate team at my university. I used to participate in Lincoln-Douglass debate in high school, but new resolution was provided by the National Forensics League every two months. Parlimentary debate requires that you write your cases on a topic you make up. (WHAT?!!) I'm stuck. My partner and I have one case affriming re-instatment of the gold standard, but we need one more. The case can be about ANYTHING. Infact, the 1st case I debated at Temple was that Brittany Spears ought to divorce her current husband. Please....You are all of able mind, many more able than my own. Do you have any suggestions? [Edited to clarify topic. - GC]

Why? we're all here for the pursuit of truth and knowledge, and if you believe that you have uncovered some truth about anything why would you not wish to share it? If the points are indisputably valid would we not conceed? Do you really think that Objectivists, people understand that reality cannot be uncovered by means of evasion, would themselves evade for the convienience of thinking something that is not true? If someone could prove indisputably to me that Ayn Rand was an insane Russian psychotic bent on world domination I would conceed, but the fact is that any such claim is simply untrue. Secrecy breeds corruption. You have made a claim, sir. Substaniate it.

Hello, My name is Megan Robinson and I am an undergrad history student at Temple Uniersity in Philadelphia. I plan to pick up a double-major in philosophy, and go to grad school to earn my Ph.D in philosophy. I haven't had as much time as I used to for the forum (between classes and being hooked on Atlas Shrugged), but the urge to discuss interesting issues with the most intelligent people availible is nearly magnetic. I would tell you that I am a great admirer of Ayn Rand, but that would be redundant, would it not?

The name of this book is The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker. I have not been able to keep up with the wirlwind of new forum rules, especially in regard to posting links. For this reason I will neither post an excerpt or a link, but all those interested can google this above information. It is fairly easy to locate in a Google search.

I read a very small portion,or rather, I skimmed through a book describing Objectivism as a cult (I have since forgotten the name of the book) once in a Barnes and Noble at the time that I was first learning Objectivism. Even in my fledging judgement I could see that the attacks were mostly ad hominem and foundationless. If I remember correctly, The author devoted a whole chapter to the claim that all Objectivists condemn having children, because none of the characters in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged ever conceived a child. He also cited an antecdote in which Peikoff was giving a lecture and Rand was listening in. He claimed that during the question-answer period a young girl asked if holding a religious belief for the benifit of comfort or solice (I think the specific context was in the case of the death of a loved one). Rand alledgedly stood up and yelled that the girl was immoral and holding such belief for any reason (but that reason in particular) was disgusting (or something along those lines). The desired effect was lost on me. After I read it, I only admired Rand more. [Edited myself, for accuracy]