TomL

What to do is be yourself. Dont' do anything contrived or forced or rehearsed if it isn't you. If you're the sort of guy to take charge, come up with the ideas, make all the arrangements, and inform her when/where/how to dress, then do that. If you're the sort of guy to consult with her, find out what she likes, get her input, probe her for ideas... then do that. The whole purpose of dating is to show her what kind of person you are, and everything you do is information that feeds that conclusion. If you don't act within your own character, then you are deceiving her and you'll pay the price later on.

Quite simple. If the appropriate female means one with no contradictions in metaphysics or epistemology, then you must know her very well by that point. Knowing her this well, you'll be able to let her know that you've also got no contradictions in that area, and also that that's what's important to you. If she holds the same as important, then she'll send an invitation your way you won't be able to miss. By all means, go after her -- let her know that you value her ideas and thus you value her. But at the same time, you must give her the respect she deserves as an important individual. She must satisfy her own criteria that you are what she seeks. When she has decided, she'll let you know.

That's not what happened in Nazi Germany. That's not how Germany became what it was. Space aliens did not fall from the sky and suddenly hold the entire country hostage. Give me a break. And if you think that the ONLY reason I pay my taxes (or anyone else pays their taxes) is because I will go to jail if I don't, then you're crazy. I pay taxes because that's the system here, and I benefit from this system. Yea, taxes are wrong, but the big picture is that the possibility for my life to be happy and prosperous is made possible by it and that is the main reason I pay. And the same reasoning is used by everyone else here, and all those who made Nazi Germany possible, and every other nation in the world. They all think that their nation is their best option for happiness. Are they not responsible for choosing to participate in an immoral system because the system they chose is immoral? Just checking, we're talking about Nazi Germany, right? No one building bombs had a gun to their head. The only innocent people were in concentration camps, and they weren't building any weapons. If the vast majority of people are as brainwashed as you, thinking that Germans were all held at gunpoint while they worked and no one wanted to do it, then we are sadly doomed to repeat it. Read Omninous Parallels.

In reality, it doesn't matter one iota whether Vioxx killed this man or not. This case should have been laughed out of court before it was even heard. No one held a gun to this man's head and forced him to take Vioxx. Taking any drug at all has risks. His physician informed him there were certain risks, he performed a cost/benefit analysis, and he chose to take the drug. Whatever happens after that is on him and no one else.

That makes no sense whatsoever. They are not innocent of acting to harm Americans, are they? Where in the world do you get the idea they are innocent? They are building bombs that blow up the Allies, and they know it. There is no bloody way in this universe they are innocent. Read Omninous Parallels.

Well, let's back up just a bit. What is the purpose of gift giving? Who is supposed to benefit from it? When its obvious that I appreciate her effort, my wife gets quite an emotional payback for buying the right gift. Whenever I buy her gifts, I buy her something I want her to have. I will not buy her something simply because she wants it -- if it means nothing to me, I'll get her something else. I'll never forget the squeal when I gave her a DeLonghi mixer. Now she gets to make cheesecake and aebleskiver, and I get to eat it Jewelry is always a selfish gift for me as well. I get to look at it -- on her, and take pride in the fact that I can control nature enough to make her sparkle. Now a romantic gift should be one that invokes romantic thoughts in the receiver. To do that for a man, you have to know what thoughts that man finds romantic, and then find the gifts to make him think of them.

Oh, here's something else I like. When my wife dresses up all sexy and then takes me out to eat. I love seeing her all dressed up.

Can't top Kevin's. But second to that, something that meets the following criteria always gets at my heart strings: 1. something that will improve the quality of my life 2. that I didn't think of on my own 3. that she thought of on her own.

When you said "you couldn't help it", ala James Taggert, regarding the governments available to you to choose from. Right. Nowism. (At the moment, I wish I had the research CD-ROM). And where do those guns come from? When did we switch gears into culture? We're talking about governments. Reinserting "government" for "culture" into your question, I would answer: the government's immorality is yours inasmuch as you are the government, which you are, whether you like it or not. The converse to your statement is: if you do not act toward changing this, then you cannot live guilt free. But merely holding the idea in one's head that something is wrong is not acting. Rejecting the evil in your own mind does nothing -- you have to externalize it, just as your actual physical support of evil is externalized.

Moving to the Caimen Islands would involve giving up a life of technological luxury, prosperity, and worldly happiness in exchange for something you can work to fix anyway without giving that all up. The U.S. is not a lost cause.

I say: Make the best available choice possible, and work to bring the perfect choice into existence. Refusing to accept any of the available choices can only be implemented in reality by one method: the suicide you inquire about. If a man must commit suicide for even a tiny slice of evil, we should have all killed ourselves long ago. Again, good & evil are not binary light switches. I've done some evil things in my life, but overall I'm much better person than most of the population, and I'm working on the rest. If I were morally perfect, I sure wouldn't be here talking to you people.

This is both Nowism and MUPish. By "the earth" you mean both "the universe", and "the universe as it exists now". What should be in place of "the earth" is "the governments currently existent in the world, which are man-made and can be changed". They are not metaphysically given, so you cannot treat them as such. The world isn't evil as matter of its existence. Just because the morally perfect option doesn't exist now doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the universe, as a possibility. You can choose it, you can work to bring it into existence. If you are morally perfect for living in the U.S. and devoid of any guilt, why would you need to work to improve the government? What possible incentive could you have? You are already morally perfect, there is no need for further effort. No further gain can come to you by doing it.

Making the best choice available to you does not obliterate the fact that the choice made contains evil as a component. Rationalize all you like for yourself, I shall care not. But when you spread this disease to others, it has a future impact on me and I will oppose you every way I can.

I guess then you don't have reason to feel pride. Since you aren't responsible for the actions of the nation, you aren't responsible for the actions of the nation -- which result in your freedom to generate prosperity and happiness. How miserable for you. If you claim such happiness but disclaim the responsibility that goes with it in making it possible, then you are a leech, living off the backs of those who carry the burden for you.

Sorry but I don't see the analogy. You're throwing out the definition of "nation", where it comes from, who gives it its authority. To be a fair comparison, you would first have had to give the hostage-taker his weapons, the locations of your children, and a map of you house to enable him to take them hostage. In that instance, how are you not responsible? I admit to not remembering that passage, but it seems at least possible. If Ayn Rand did not write that she did not feel partially responsible, then she may have. She may have felt she should have done more herself to prevent it. Even if not, I don't see how this is relevant, either. Taggert Transcontinental was not a nation.

No, there isn't. Consequences to your life which you accept are your responsibility. The U.S. government makes it possible for you to be happy and prosperous, which is why you decide to participate in the system. But when you decide to participate in the system, you have to take the consequences from the whole system, not just the parts you agree with. I'm not going to argue with you on this any further. My position should be abundantly clear.

Hopefully he feels that he must actively oppose certain actions of the government because he is responsible for them. There is no other reason for which there would be a need for him to act in opposition.

Why don't they come to America? When deciding to leave Iran and seek the freedom of persuing happiness, why choose any nation over this one? How dissatisified can one be because they were denied entry by a country like France? Hell, that might even be a blessing

Here's what makes us different despite the fact that our government does immoral things with our support: In the United States, happiness and prosperity are possible. The same cannot be said for our enemies, can it? Is happiness and prosperity as we know it even possible in Iran as it now exists? Not a chance in hell. Because it is still possible to be happy in this system, we are right to continue with it and try our best to improve it. For those living in and supporting a system in which happiness is not possible, they are not only immoral for actively supporting initiation of force but also for condemning themselves to a life in which happiness cannot occur. You can't deserve prosperity and happiness and at the same time not deserve the bomb in your lap when they are both caused by the same action -- the action of supporting your nation.

This may be true of the political prisoner, but he will receive a bomb in his lap with open arms. He wants it to come. For the regular everyday man, acting to physically support his nation, who shrugs the responsibility for what his government does -- he deserves what he gets -- and that goes for whether its a bomb in his lap, or prosperity and happiness. You can't deserve the prosperity and happiness and not the bomb in your lap when they are caused by the same action -- the action of supporting your nation.

Good. Let's read very carefully what Ayn Rand said about this topic: Your conclusions select neglect as to what you do about your government's evil. You will pay for the sins of your government, and in as much as you put up with it, you deserve what comes from it.

No. Certainly they would not be. Edit: OK, there is one extreme edge case for an innocent civilian. A political prisoner. He cannot act to support the government because he has no freedom to be productive. But this is not the norm. Further, he will most likely welcome the incoming bombs because he wants his government to change. The civilians who work productively within the nation ARE acting to support the repressive government. They ARE supporting it. There's no way to deny this simple fact. When you make a decision to do something, you have to accept ALL of the consequences that come with that decision, you don't get to pick & choose which ones you like and which ones you don't. The universe doesn't work that way for anything else, why for this? Objectivism is not a way for you to rationalize your decisions such that you come out looking squeaky clean doing whatever you feel like. In order to actually make yourself a better person and be happier, you have to be able to identify the errors you do make and work to correct them. You have to know when and where you are doing something bad so that you can do your best to stop it. Making yourself a better person starts with the question, "What bad things do I do?" Physically supporting a government that initiates force is one of them. Working productively within the U.S. means that you are supporting all of the actions the nation takes as a nation. Some of them are good, some are not -- but you physically support them all nonetheless. There's no way to argue the point that your tax dollars are used to do some evil things. They are YOUR tax dollars, they ARE used for bad things. Be aware of this, don't just shrug it off because you don't agree with it. Be vocal, blog, write your congressmen, speak out in social gatherings, do all of those things. Make sure everyone in earshot knows its not OK. Remember all those people in Atlas who exclaimed "It's not my fault!" That's what you're doing, and it will enable the government to get worse. The government is SUPPOSED to represent the people. If enough people want the government to change, it will change. When the people don't care and shrug it off, the government gets nasty. That is what is happening, and that's what we all need to contribute to putting a stop to. And it starts by admitting that we are the cause. We cause the government to exist, we cause it to be what it is, we put the gun into its hands in the first place, and we can change it if we want to. The rationalization that there's no moral sanction because there's currently no alternative to a gun pointed at your face anywhere puts the nail in the coffin of freedom forever. The alternative you ask for is this: if you DO fight for freedom, someday it WILL exist, because it is possible and man is generally benevolent.

At least you'll admit that much. I'm not surprised. Mighty presumptuous of you, that I was actually trying argue with that.

Not to mention the fact that the gun the U.S. points at you for its taxes is the gun you give it in the first place. Or should we find someone else to blame for that too? Perhaps the founding fathers were evil for creating this monster? It's ridiculous to drop all this context. As long as it continues, so will the evil.

So ideas don't make a man evil, just his actions? Who does that smack of? Incidentally it is not my idea, just the one you are inserting by means of ignoring half of what I've said and isolating out only a small part of it, and then twisting it into what you think I'm saying. Can you say MUP? I knew you could.