Dreamspirit

Yes, but you can't be your teacher's pet.

Well, instead of going to the school for skanks it seems a much better idea to go out and find a sweetheart to practice with.

It sounds like you need to take a step back.
I understand that your love and concern for your sister make this situation troubling for you but it is, afterall, her life to make choices as she sees fit.
Part of making choices will always be making mistakes.

When you love someone it is almost guaranteed that they will come with some baggage in the form of relatives one would rather not associate with.
She'll probably have to go through a trial and error period of figuring out how and where to set her boundaries with her husband's family.

Your heated emotional response to all this will probably backfire at some point. Your post started off as being about handling having to sit through religious ceremonies you disapprove of and veered into what seems to be hatred and contempt for your brother-in-law's whole family. There will inevitably be conflict and your BIL will probably have to choose to stand up to his family or damage his relationship with his wife. But really, that is bewteen them when it does happen. Which it hasn't yet.

Ultimately, the (admittedly awful) behaviors you're describing aren't really about religion. Many non-religious in laws indulge in the exact same awful behaviors.
Your sister found what sounds like a great man from a terrible family. Sucks, but such is often the case.
You might want to ask yourself though what getting yourself so worked up over it will gain you, or your sister, or anyone.
If you are truly wanting to help your sister being calm and dispassionate about the situation is probably best.

Vitriol can make for good drama, but rarely good living situations.

In the fall I'll be attending the wedding of two of my good friends from college. They are both Christians and quite religious, and it will definitely be a Christian ceremony. I'm very excited about it, because it'll be a celebration of a beautiful thing: the two of them joining their lives together. I'll be happy to sit through all the religious stuff, because the celebration isn't about me; it's about them, and they want their religious beliefs included in the ceremonies, which is quite understandable. As far as the group prayer stuff you brought up, I never lower my head when I'm attending something and there's a mass prayer, because I don't want to be pretending to be participating in something that I'm not, and I'd think that those actually praying wouldn't want me to either. My friends all know and are comfortable with my lack of religious belief, and with the other people there I just won't care.

It's unclear from your post, but if with your siblings you're talking about people who aren't religious but submitted to a religious wedding for the sake of their families, that is something that should make you uncomfortable, more than uncomfortable actually. The wedding is about the two people getting married, and no one else, and it's pretty messed up to have one of the most important events of one's life infused with beliefs one doesn't share for the sake of family members.

Agreed. The best sex there is is with someone I've known and have been having it with for a while.

A real man or woman doesn't need to display anything. They just are what they are and they are confident in that.

The dominance game is fake. If someone is playing the dominant one, the other is consenting to do it, so it isn't really dominance at all. And if it is real dominance, where someone does not consent, it's not dominance and is not sex at all, but rape.

The dominance game is merely a form of foreplay. It helps make all concerned very excited before intercourse. It's just an exciting game.

Common sense, as far as I'm concerned. Slow drivers are surprises, and surprises are my main concern on the road. Add to going against the natural flow of traffic speed: worrying about cops and speed traps, which takes away from traffic awareness and thus driving safety in general. Like everyone, cops target stereotypes, and depending on your region, going the speed limit isn't enough. Cop avoidance in general may be necessary, which is just another attention diversion on the road.

Speed limits are de facto almost uniformly on highways, independent of the posted limits. Cities, I find myself going the speed limit almost always, sometimes slower. The de facto nature strongly suggests that they are not set correctly. Of course, I could argue against speed limits altogether, even in a private road system, in favor of penalties for being at fault in any type of crash. People would naturally be more careful about all aspects of driving, speed included. Following the speed limit would also no longer be an excuse for road apathy, if there was no limit set. "I'm going the speed limit, so I can txt, txt, txt."

I know I am preaching to the choir on this one, but I want to get this out:

Traffic laws are a travesty of the justice system, punishing people for violating nobody's rights. Everyone breaks traffic laws, often willfully and sometimes without even knowing about it, both of which suggest bad lawmaking. At best these laws serve as poor substitutes for what would otherwise be contractual agreements for private road usage, at worst they exploit the power of government force by expropriating wealth for use toward illegitimate government activity.

I am fed up with these laws. They are like taxes in that the money stolen from you and me is not great enough to warrant a serious uproar or rebellion, or even a letter to a government official. They are unlike taxes in that one can put a face to every single penny being stolen: the police officer, and as a side-note this has had a big negative effect on how I think of the police generally. How does one live with one's self when stealing money from another person, face-to-face, as part of a career?

The solution is privatizing our roads, whereupon everyone will be happy and nobody will be punished for using his own judgement on the road, unless it is warranted through contract breach or by damaging another or his property. That would eliminate the laws automatically. But since most people seem to accept roads as inherently government-operated, somehow setting aside the poor quality, upkeep, and price as a standard different from their other dealings with business and service, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

As a fast driver and a lover of the road (I dream of 7-lane highways), perhaps I am extra sensitive to traffic laws, cracked roads and congestion. Is there anyone else who shares my sentiment? What about the circumstances necessary for privatizing our roads?

it was Halloween!!! for the love of Galt!

Also, the blog post is tagged with the words "satire" and "snark", so yes, it was definitely intended as a joke.

Integration of Polish citizens used to be a whole point before the 40s (Eastern and Southern Euros were considered undesired as legislated in the Johnson Reed immigration act of 1924). Then came the war with Poland as somewhat of the (passive) trigger. Catholics (or ex Catholic atheists) in Baptist land were never welcomed with open arms. When you add atheism with slavic heritage images of Communism might come to the average mind of your county.
There was a time when Germans were considered difficult to integrate but now American whites identify their ancestry with Germanany more than with any other Old World nation - that is unless you live in either coastal metro area where the mix only leaves Italians as a majority within European Americans.
http://upload.wikime...-County.svg.png
I'm not even American but I believe you as, while ridiculous as this sounds to my urban mind, I understand inter European racism and I even see it's a theme in literature.
In your case
"I am not a Pollack. People from Poland are Poles. They are not Pollacks. But what I am is one hundred percent American. I'm born and raised in the greatest country on this earth and I'm proud of it. And don't you ever call me a Pollack. " Stanley Kovalski, a Streetcar called Desire, Tennessee Williams

I didn't even know anti-polish racism was a thing that existed in North America,

What reason would someone even have to not like the polish of all ethnicities?

Yes, it's immoral to lie. By lying you are evading reality, in this case your boyfriends character. You seem to know what his reaction will be like, while trying to avoid the consequences of telling him the truth. Think about what effect that attitude will have on your relationship in the long run.

I suggest you tell him straight. Then deal with it. Either you'll come to terms with each other, or it will cause a break. The important thing though is that you deal with each other as who you are, and not how you wish the other person would be.

Unconditionally? No. i could not imagine loving my children if they were child abusers, pedophiles or murderers. It would break my heart, but such a thing proven without a doubt would be enough to destroy my love of them.

How so?

Do you mean that because I have loved and had sex with others in the past, all my future relationships will be lesser than they could have been? That's certainly not how I value things.

Here's what Ayn Rand has to say about it:

"Like any other value, love is not a static quantity to be divided, but an unlimited response to be earned. The love for one friend is not a threat to the love for another, and neither is the love for the various members of one’s family, assuming they have earned it. "

"Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. "

Notice the last part, "the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person...", i'd say that love itself is not the currency. The currency is virtue, and love is the response to that. It's not a limited respons either, it's not like if you are surrounded by a lot of virtuous people that suddenly you would not have the capacity to love all of them, or that somehow the love gets watered down.

However, one thing that would diminish the meaning of love is if there's a lack of virtue - which of course is a problem with promiscuous people.


Do you know what her emotional state was like, and how do you know it? Also, are you implying that she let emotions cloud her judgement?

Another thing that really rubs me the wrong way are statements like "if Ayn Rand had lived... she would have...". That's pure speculation that makes it sound like she would have taken your side "if only...". A more honest and straightforward way to put it is; "I think she made a mistake here. Period.".

Personally I havent read that much about the break with the Brandens. One thing I do know however is that Nathaniel Brandens own homepage is filled with dishonesty, misreprestations and straw-man arguments of Objectivism. That makes me sincerly doubt the mans integrity and what a fine Objectivist he is.

The overarching purpose of PTK is to recruit high-GPA students to low-prestige schools.

Sounds like good advice, thank you! I'll take some time to think about the broader context, and reconsider my attitude.

In this case I might add that going over my bosses head is the reason why I still have my job. The short version of it is like this:

I'm back with an employer i've had several times in the past. I've always loved working there, and they've loved having me. However, there have been different things coming in the way of a more permanent contract - a question of timing, more than anything else. This time though, the timing was right and I made it very clear to my (new) boss that I wish to stay after my contract runs out. The answer I get from my boss is that he would love to have me stay there, but unfortunately they have deals with the union saying that they need to have a formal recruiting process, where everyone can apply for the job. The next time for that would be a few months ahead.

Just before my contract ran out I learned that it wasn't quite as i've been told. And to add insult to injury they were taking in a bunch of new guys, people who are not even dry behind the ears and whos mistakes i've been fixing for months. I don't think it was out of dishonesty I got that answer from my boss, but simply because he doesn't understand the rules. There are in fact obstacles like a formal recruiting process in the way. However, they could have extended my current contract. My boss should also have talked to the guys higher up in the hierarchy, but since he failed to report they were completely taken by surprise when I talked to them and showed interest.

When I found out I went straight to one of the executives and my bosses boss. The next day I had an extended contract, they put me on an additional training program and I was told that at the end of this they would have a very informal recruiting pretty much intended to get me in.

I was very happy about this until I found out they changed the deal. As it looks right now they would rather take in new people than me. I don't quite fit their profile, despite the fact that i'm performing superlatively, and the first step of the recruiting process is done by external consultants who won't consider any references(i.e the fact that I have an excellent track record is not worth sh*t in their eyes).

This friday I confronted my boss with this. When confronted he was cringing, couldn't look at me, and gave his standard answer whenever something important comes up; "Oh, um... i'll have to look into this, but you know I have so many things to do so I don't know when i'll have the time...". I made it very clear that I expect him to do his job and that I want answers yesterday. I don't think we will be friends anymore. It's fine with me, though I do wish things will go smooth.

What i'm going to do now is to deal with the others. So far i've gotten a very positive impression of them, so i'm hoping it will be smooth and uncomplicated. I just need to be careful not to take out my frustration on them, and handle any problems calmly.


I'm usually just your friendly neighbourhood spiderman. I prefer to just do my thing while being nice and friendly to others. Should conflicts arise they are usually not important enough to fight over, so in such cases I just let my disagreement be known and leave it at that. However, if it's important and someone crosses the line I charge forward and never back down. I such cases I just don't care who's in my way - it's not in me to fear anyone, and certainly not an undeserved authority.

I think the problem is that i'm focusing very strictly at what I see as being at stake. This job is my highest value, i'm very proud of what i've achieved there, and it matters to me in more ways than just being a job. I've met some truly amazing people there and grown tremendously over the years, so I feel at home and at peace when i'm working. I've done other things in the past, had other jobs, and i've enjoyed them alot. But at the end of the day, all i've wished for is to get back there, grab a cup of coffee and sit down at my desk and get to work.

So, when i'm facing this kind of BS, that's what I see as being at stake. Hell, it's even more than that. I have plans on going through law school while working there, and it's a perfect place to be for a law student. Not only am I dealing with legal matters every day, there are also excellent carreer opportunities there.

That's why I get so upset. But as you accurately point out, what would I really get out of it? Reasoning is the best way to deal with people.

What does Objectivism say about circumcision?

I know Rand never mentioned it, specifically, unless I somehow missed it. But there should still be some interpretations or guidelines with respect to reality, rationality, rights, etc, which can help guide this decision.

Personally, I think it's disgusting. It's religious barbarianism meant to cut man down. It's a violation of rights. It's a sin against the greatness of man to mutilate his body in a way which may humble him until he dies.

If I may say so, I hope if anyone here has a male (or female) child, they will not follow these religious traditions and end this crime against man's ego. Thank you.

Here's a topic I thought i'd never make. I'm usually calm and collected, and if I loose my temper I still keep it under control. Lately though, some events have brought me to righteous anger of biblical proportions. If I don't get a hold of myself this could in turn damage my relationships with some people.

I don't wish to go into any detail about the actual events. It's too complex and rather irrelevant. In short though, because of incompetence and bureaucracy I could be loosing my job soon. Not because of anything i've done. On the contrary, i'm extremely good at what I do and appreciated by everyone I work with. However, i'm getting screwed by incompetent bosses and bureaucratic management. It's nothing personal against me, i'm just the guy taking the consequences of their mess.

I love my job so this is very important to me, which is also why i'm so furious. I intend, of course, to take this as far up in the hierarchy as I have to - hopefully finding someone that can be reasoned with.

To do this though, I need to keep my head clear. And hell, yesterday I was pretty much reading my boss the riot act and issuing orders. Not very diplomatic, though he's one less obstacle in my way.

The problem is when dealing with others. I need to keep my head clear even if they give me trouble. But, how do I do that? I mean, hell, just thinking about some of the things makes me shake and want to rip someones head off. And that's pretty darn bad if you want someone to listen and convince them of how good you are.

So, do you have any good advice to offer? How do you handle situations like this? Should I try meditation or horse tranquilizers, or what?

The very, very short version is to broaden the context which you keep on the front of your mind, and shut up around your bosses until they are happy about the "level" which you maintain shutting up.

Going over bosses' heads is a dangerous, job threatening game no matter how great their incompetence. Remembering your job within the grander scope of things, and how incompetence eventually falls flat on its face, should get and keep you a little calmer.

I cannot provide a successful positive case that consciousness can be independent of matter.

(It is necessary in the time between consciousness moving from one body to another). And I cannot think of a mechanism how the consciousness would "sense" a body to be reincarnated to, having no sensory information. Tibetan Buddhists posit that consciousness has extra-sensory perception at the time between the different lifetimes)

But thinking in basic principles - where does our consciousness come from, does seem to suggest it comes from a previous reincarnation.

A consciousness would have to be created EX NIHILO (from nothing), or from matter, or reincarnated from another consciousness.

I do not see how something can be created from nothing (if something is created FROM something, then there should be a reason why it is this thing that is created and not another. This reason should be interaction between nothing, and the conditions. But since "nothing", cannot interact, something cannot be created from it).

And I do not see how could matter be _transformed_ into consciousness. So, I have to assume it came from another.

And there is the issue of Mozart, for example. Where did his genius come from? I don't think genius can be "encoded" in genes. It is just not that type of thing that can be created by something physical. It has to be created by a spiritual process (spiritual in the best sense of the word. Like Howard Rork was "spiritual").

FeatherFall’s linked to article on DXM tends to tell against his point, for it concludes: “Explaining OOBEs [out of body experiences] is difficult and is in my opinion currently beyond neuroscience.”

I don’t have much to offer on this subject except to say I’ve always found the debunking of vitalism a boor. You only have to experience the death of a loved one to realize that life is more than a body. (Added: I don't mean to imply that there’s life after death though.)

I don’t think there need be any contradiction between that and the unity of mind and body, or with the Greek idea expressed by “a healthy mind in a healthy body.”

Yes, maybe I shouldn't have said "goddamn." That was not my original intention. I just wanted to emphasize it: A philosophy is compounded of highly abstract principles, not of detached concretes.
That is unto the individual to decide how to deal with concretes, unless it it really a matter of contradicting Oism or remaining consistent with it.
You can formulate your own reasoning on why to like or dislike Xmas
But one thing is for sure: Christmas is certainly not "immoral for an Objectivist," and such questions should be asked outside the context of Objectivism as a philosophy.

Why are you so combative?

Winter and Yule (let's cut the Christ out of a lovely tradition) are very contemplative and beautiful. I say celebrate it, if you enjoy it, but don't fall for any equation to Christ or any mystical elements.

capmag.com:
Christmas Should Be More Commercial
A Commercialized Christmas Carol
Long Live Commercialism this Christmas!

OO.net:
Discussing Santa Claus With Fiancee
Telling Children About Santa Claus

It's not abuse, but it's neglect. Neglect can be just as harmful as abuse.