Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    194

Everything posted by Nicky

  1. A simple way of doing what I suggested is having coffee with someone. It's a few basic steps: 1. you suggest to a person that you should have coffee together 2. walk to a coffee shop together (or separately, if you weren't together) 3. find a table and order coffee (or the other way around, depends on the place) 4. drink the coffee 5. say goodbye Are you saying that you find some of that daunting, or don't know how to do it? Which part?
  2. I didn't suggest you move on from anything. My advice, that you should improve your communication, interaction, dating and relationship skills through practice with whoever is willing to go out with you, has nothing to do with moving on. You should do that for the sake of becoming a better person, not for any other purpose. That's irrelevant. Rational people don't just do what they feel interested in (that is whim worship, entirely antithetical to Reason), they try to act on what they rationally determine is in their best interest. Do you agree that improving yourself in this area
  3. A high ranking White House official wrote a little essay on the subject of this thread: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html He didn't leave his name, which should only fuel Trump's paranoia about his subordinates undermining him. Best quote: Another quote: This is not a liberal. It's not a Democrat. This is a conservative Republican. One of many, sitting in a position of power, waiting for the right time to finally end this absurdity.
  4. Well, that is Trump's position. I doubt it was the position of these Republican voters before Trump entered politics, and it's unlikely that it will stay their position after he leaves. These people are simply followers, who cannot think for themselves, but are able to identify with a group (Republicans, because it's a far more white group than the other one, and, in the absence of abstract thinking, they need a concrete, obvious trigger for their affiliation...skin color works well for this), and take on the ideas of the loudest voice within it. I don't see much chance that this point of
  5. What about the advice? Have you understood any of it (meaning, have you understood why it was given)? Have you tried any of it? Has any of it helped you in any way, so far? Just so you know: the most important, in fact I would say crucial, advice you received in this thread (you got it from multiple people, not just me) was to try and date others (without necessarily giving up on this girl)...because you don't seem very good at romantic relationships, and the only way to get good at something is through practice. Have you made any progress on that front? Have you tried? Do you intend
  6. The fact that you haven't offered a convincing argument that there are. By all means, go ahead and do that: what values, independent of the pursuit of life, are there, and why.
  7. Just a reminder of what's going on...or at least what you said is going on: you cut off contact with this person without an explanation. You might want to start the process of re-establishing contact with an explanation for your bizarre behavior, instead of any questions. I would suggest a well composed, written explanation. One in which you assume full responsibility for everything that happened, without being overly dramatic. Good luck: it's a big hole you dug yourself into.
  8. If anything, it should be the other way around: women should stop decorating themselves on a daily basis, too. I'm not opposed to the practice, for men or women, but it's a waste of time when done daily. There is no reason why women should only ever leave the house "decorated". And, indeed, women I know who are productive don't waste their time with that. My boss (a woman...she's also my favorite boss of all time) dresses in the same exact, simple clothes every day. She commands the respect and admiration of people around her through her actions, instead of her appearance (not that there
  9. a one-day meeting ------------- An all day meeting? Dear sweet God. I hope the windows were locked, to keep people from jumping.
  10. These are usually three very different things: 1. the way person A is 2. the way person A sees him or her self 3. the way another person sees person A That's why it's very important to always be open to the possibility that you are wrong, about pretty much everything, except logically and scientifically proven truths. Odds are, she doesn't see herself as particularly witty or smart, or you as particularly dull or stupid. It's even possible that she isn't wittier or smarter than you, you just think so. As for the other three, you're probably right there, but those thing
  11. Sorry, but this whole thing stopped making sense to me. On the one hand, you are describing a situation where a friend of yours, who you have a crush on, and who's shown interest in you herself, is either having a quick fling with someone else, or is in the early stages of a relationship with someone else. Either way, not a relationship that's guaranteed, or even likely, to last. On the other hand, you're talking about a girl who is "unattainable", "out of your league", and regret and missed opportunity, all suggesting that there's no chance you could ever date her. Those two stories
  12. I think you have a problem, but it's not what you think. Your problem isn't inexperience or shyness. Women don't mind that. What they mind is jealousy and insecurity. You are NOT in a relationship with anyone. You shouldn't act like you are, and while we're at it, you should also try not to feel like you are. Your jealousy is out of place. You're not in pain because of any kind of lost love (she's clearly not lost to you), you're in pain because of misplaced jealousy. Here are some things you shouldn't do: 1. Do not tell her about your jealousy or any kind of pain she is causing you.
  13. You can think your way into or out of anything...as long as you are aware of what your actual values are, and are willing to give them up if you recognize them as irrational. (I'm saying actual values to differentiate from our purported values: the values that actually drive our emotions and actions, not the ones we would like to have drive us). For instance, if there is an emotion that is too strong to overcome, then whatever value is causing you to have that emotion needs to be identified and reconsidered. In this case, the main suspect would be this notion, that became part of the fabr
  14. One of the greatest regrets of my early life is cutting off ties with a girl I loved, and several of our common friends, because I couldn't have her. Yes, staying friends would've been painful...and, back then, I thought pain was a hindrance to any kind of accomplishment or success, and therefor to be avoided at all cost...but, as I found out later: pain is a part of life. A necessary, and therefor GOOD part of life. It would've TAUGHT me a lot, about both myself and the nature of the human experience in general. So just take the pain. Don't betray your values, by removing a good per
  15. While I think the argument "we are omnivores by nature, so we should continue eating meat" should be sufficient to keep a rational actor from becoming a strict vegan, I recently heard an even stronger argument: There are no vegetarian ecosystems on Earth. They don't exist. For an ecosystem to function in a sustainable way, some animals have to be eaten: there have to be animals that eat plants (and other lesser life forms), and there have to be animals that eat the plant eaters. If the planet were to turn vegan, we would have to feed everyone with food grown outside a functional ecosystem
  16. Depends on those existing values. Just saying that you value "health" and "wealth" doesn't really explain your values. Everybody values health and wealth. Some too little, some the right amount and for the right reasons, and some too much and for the wrong reasons. For starters, health and wealth can conflict as values: you can spend all your time striving to perfect your health, or you can spend all your time at work. Can't do both. So even just with that, you have to prioritize one over the other, in any given situation, and end up with a compromise between two priorities. Then there ar
  17. Nicky

    Choice - or not.

    Really? What if you're lost in the woods, and after several days of wandering the wilderness you stumble on an isolated cabin with massive amounts of donuts, and nothing else, in the fridge? What if you're in the middle of a famine in Africa, and a nice American billionaire decides to drop off a truckful of, you guessed it: donuts. Guess what: the right thing to do, in either case, is enjoy some donuts. Why? Because words only have meaning in context. Deciding what food is and isn't healthy, without providing context, is foolish. If eating something makes you healthier than not eating it,
  18. Nicky

    Choice - or not.

    Acting impulsively and whimsically is not the same thing. Impulsive simply means unplanned (you seem to be aware of this, since you're contrasting it with planned action). There's nothing wrong with impulsive action, per se. A person with rational values will have good impulses, and acting on them will usually lead to good results. Not always, of course, because impulsive actions can lead to mistakes, but allowing for the occasional mistake beats the alternative: being paralyzed in situations that surprise us...which is most situations, because the world is in constant motion, and if we w
  19. Well, as usual, it's impossible to measure the impact of government actions that restrict economic activity, because we don't know how much could have been done in a free economy. The worst kind of government action is the kind that bars the grazing of domesticated animals on "natural reserves". Obviously, this wasn't done with the intention to build deserts, or to hinder regenerative farming. Like Savory points out in the video, traditional grazing, which has been going on for thousands of years, IS causing desertification (and with it, climate change). And restricting grazing wasn't mea
  20. Here's a video of Allan Savory, an ecologist who conducted research on a massive scale in Africa and around the world, making an extraordinary claim: if we were to farm live-stock on half the world's grasslands using the regenerative methods I (briefly) described above, that would store enough carbon in the soil to return the Earth's climate to pre-industrial conditions...and feed the world in the process. He also notes that this is the ONLY known way to stop or reverse global warming. He also posits that environmentalist policies that "protect" land from grazing have accelerated global w
  21. The (IC of the) Red Cross is mentioned in the Geneva Conventions as an organization that has "controlling authority" in the enforcement of humanitarian law during war. It's the only organization named in that context. So they go around checking on the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians under occupation, by Geneva Conventions mandate...which is indeed a form of government charter. They visit Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance. That's the only thing I can think of, that would give them government sanction. Other than that minor aspect of their work, the Red Cross is a private c
  22. Ayn Rand didn't claim to know more about the world than what science tells us. What she did do is assume three axioms without which any knowledge would be impossible, and dismiss statements that aren't based in fact, or use concepts that aren't based in reality. One such concept is "infinite", or "forever". Defining a concept as the "the opposite" of another concept (has "opposite" attributes) isn't based in reality. Just because something exists, doesn't mean "the opposite" of it exists too. Let's just leave it at this: there are things that we don't have the ability to measure, cur
  23. Nicky

    An Ally Emerges

    Also, the Philippines IS a US ally in the global war on militant Islam, and a crucial theater, where the West need to hold back their expansion, just like we held back Communism in various countries across the globe, during the Cold War. So we can't really afford to be anything but allies with Duterte. It would be nice if we had a US President who was able to qualify that alliance as born out of necessity rather than mutual admiration, but that doesn't change the fact that the European approach of constantly morally reprimanding a warlord who's on our side, without acknowledging the facts
  24. Nicky

    An Ally Emerges

    His approval ratings have been oscillating between 37 and 42%, with 53-58% disapproving. Only President ever to be that unpopular, since the polling started, was Jimmy Carter, back when he was tanking the economy. Short of a large scale act of aggression against the US, there is nothing that could change that. The majority of Americans are firmly entrenched both in opposing him politically and disliking him personally.
  25. I haven't read the books either, so this conversation is borderline meaningless, but I would love to find out more about this sentence, from the Shermer book's summary: It's a little unclear what that means. Does it mean that science is the best tool to determine whether ANY belief matches reality? Because it's clearly not. To talk about tools, you must first define the problem you're trying to solve. So what's the best tool to do that? What tool is he using to define the problem he's trying to solve with science? Specifically, what tool did he use to determine that there's s
×
×
  • Create New...