Styles2112

I'm sooo writing a song with that title.

Yes, when I stated that she is proud I was talking about being seperate/distinct productive entities. Just as I would not want to feel dependant on her, she would not want to feel dependant on me. HOWEVER, in terms of a relationship and how the money is spent (or where it comes from) it really doesn't matter, because the investment is not the MONEY but the time spent with a loved one (which is the logic for you second question and how we BOTH came to it). Allow me to add that I was not broken up over her paying instead of me...it was just a thought in the back of my mind, I had already come to the conclusion that it was alright (she just put the final nail in the board, so to speak). Now the difference in morality (at least, the way I see it), is if I never tried to pay (and the same with her). When I had the money, I'd do something special for her (since she was of value to me). I think the immorality is when one EXPECTS the other to pay (regardless of the sex). What I valued in her was her productive/intelligent mind, not how much money she makes or whether she flaunts it. See above Could I have been happy either way? Well, let's see. If I had chosen that it was 'immoral' for her to pay for me. We'd have broken up...I'd more than likely still be single right now. I suppose I could've been happy like that...however, now I'm married, have a WONDERFUL marriage with a beautiful, intelligent woman who is on equal terms with me and we have a child due this month. I much think that I'm happier with the choice I made. Out of curiousity, are you married or have you ever been?

Hmmm...I haven't played chess in LONG time (and I was never good) I should get back to playing it. Battleship is my game.

In all honesty, I found many of the speeches at the beginning of AS long and repetative. I thought the first 500 pages could've been shrunk down a bit, and the end expanded upon...but in the end, it would've been the same length. I mean, honestly, Fransisco's 20 page speech was just obnoxious. It took me three years to get through the beginning of the book, and two hours to read through the end.

As I do mine. When I read the former article, I thought it said she made those statements AFTER being released. My bad. Maybe I read it wrong, Felipe, but I think she was sarcastically pointing that very thing out. If she responds, we'll know then.

Yes. She does. And just like any contradiction in one's life, I wasn't happy until I let that silly thing go. If she was in the reversed role she would not have cared, she would have been the same as me. In other words, if you're with a woman, just so that you can pay for her dinner, you should probably rethink your relationship. Again, you cannot prove ANYTHING by simplifying a relationship down to money. So there's a double standard?

I'll rephrase the question then. You feel that a woman's mind should be utilized so that she may become a sex object? Or that the primary focus of her productivity is to be noticed by a "rational man?"

Ahhh...I see where we disagree now. So, a woman's role is to be a sex object? Not a mind of her own?

This is what I mean. My fears are substantiated. I think she was, possibly, an agent of theirs from the get-go. I don't think she was "kidnapped" I think she was "home." Seriously, I don't think there's a way a NON-MUSLIM AMERICAN WOMAN would live through that ordeal. All Muslim extremists think she should die. Why did she live, and why was she not harmed? Clearly, she showed support for the insurgents, and I'm betting they saw the PR value in that. While EVIL, the muslims are not stupid. They know the US is torn by this war and actions like this make the moral water even more murky. It's much easier to win a war if you can convince everyone else that you're a "freedom-fighter" and we're the bad guys. They take the moral high ground. I just think this was planned from the start. I.e. she agreed to it.

My point is, you cannot ISOLATE one period in time (ESPECIALLY in a relationship) without taking into account the points that led you there. Again, situations without context. You are trying to set up a strawman. You're misreading me. MY irrationality was pointed out, I saw that (using MY own reason) and corrected it. There was no misleading. Please don't put words into my mouth or make the wrong interpretation from my words. As an extra point, it would not have been different if the roles had been reversed. My wife is a proud woman who expects to make it on her own. It seems like what you are tying to ask or assert is whether a woman is okay with being dependant on a man vs. a man being dependant on a woman. However, I think the point we are trying to make in return is that in a Rational relationship there is no "dependance" regardless of who makes more money or by how much. I do/did not LOVE my girlfriend/fiance'/wife because she made more than me....I love her because of our shared values and shared experiences.

Not to think the worst of people or anything, but those dots don't really connect. I think something else was going on with that.

What do you mean "as it is?" I did answer it as it is, and even added a true to life scenario. Are you asking for us to answer without contextual concern? Also, as far as my wife is concerned, my vote can count for two. She thinks the same way. Another point I wanted to add was that while in college, and we were dating she paid for most of our trips and meals. She was working for a "well off" family and I only had the reserves for money. She made SIGNIFICANTLY more money than me. I felt bad, at times, because I could not afford to give her more, however when expressed she was taken aback because the whole idea of us going out was not about WHO paid, but about the TIME we spent together. WHO CARES WHO PAID? And suddenly, I didn't anymore. She made more money. Not a problem, and a year and a half later we're married. If you would, blackdiamond, answer my question...how can you limit romantic love to how much money either party makes, and expect to derive some kind of morality judgement from that? There is MUCH, MUCH, much more to love and relationships than that.

They thought that in 1989, too. Unfortunately, while, I agree to some degree about the moral standing just "taking out" those countries, I have to agree with Moose that while we're good, we're not good enough to take on the ENTIRE world. Quite Frankly, I don't want to. We could probably take on China, and we could definitely take on Russia but we could not take on both (considering while we make that attack, the homeland would be open terrorist attacks, we would HAVE to have a draft, and taxes would have to be raised substantially to fund such destruction). Such an attack/war would probably set India and Pakistan Nuking each other as they ally with whomever gives them the most support (I would assume India with us, since we give them MOST of our jobs). It would end in a nuclear Holocaust in which NO ONE would "win." I tell you, though....everytime I read these threads...you give me more and more reason to get my @ss out of the military.

Then I'll try again...Here...

Sure, why not? I love what I do. She loves what she does. We're both very good at it. If she's willing to "fund" it (as you so put it), then obviously (as a rational individual) it's of importance/value to her, as well. She, obviously, sees the value and pride in what I do, so why would there be any sort of issue? In reality, my wife makes more than me (not terribly more, but a couple hundred bucks more a paycheck). I have no problem with this. I like my job, she likes hers. Are you suggesting that I should divorce her because my "masculinity" is in question because of how much I make compared to her? Why is money the standard of value for these relationships. I don't really get some of these "examples." Like, neither my wife, or I, are good at cleaning, so that suggests that I should go have an affair with a maid, simply because the maid is more "complimentary" in that area. I don't think a ROMANTIC relationship can be simplified down to one or two value judgements and expect them to be objective. The relationship is what it is.

I thought this was funny. Especially since it took me almost three years to read Atlas Shrugged. http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ume...1ccc21f9f1d8671

When you get further towards the end, even more insight is laid out. I wonder if he'll (Eragon) "get it" in the third book.

Do all the parties involved "love" what they do for a job? If so, then there's no reason either couple would be unhappy. Unfortunatley, NONE of these examples are concrete because there's a bit more to marriage/love than just who makes more money, or who's masculine and who's feminine.

Well, now that I've finished Eldest, I can, sort of, see where he's going with this. It's funny. You can CLEARLY see the difference in maturity of his writing between the two books. While, yes, I can see much of the different inspirations for his writings, I think that if these are his first books, then he, as a writer, can only get better. College, I'm sure, will do wonders for him and his writing. **SECOND SPOILER ALERT** It does some interesting posing of idiologies. The elves, who follow reason and believe in no god, live an almost Utopian life, whereas the humans and Dwarves, whose lives are saturated with faith and Gods, seem to struggle to barely get by. I'm not sure that he meant it that way, but definitely an interesting statement.

Wow....That's incredibly ballsy. I'll tip my hat to that.

Sorry, I haven't been on in a while, so I haven't had a chance to make any comments on this. Milking a cow could be respresentative of force upon an animal, however it is not the same as having SEX with the cow. Milking it is taking a useful (to you, or another human) product of the animal from it. However, this action also helps the cow, becuase if left full, the milk could get infected and kill the cow. Milking a cow actually benefits both parties. I already stated, and will not state again, the inherent immorality of sex with a cow. So far, there have been no clear cut or defined reasons on the immorality of homosexuality. Capatilism Forever - I know this is going back a couple pages, but I don't see the link between femine features on a Man, or Masculine on a Woman, and Islamic terrorism. You'll probably have to break that down for me, because I don't have a CLUE what you're even talking about. Maybe you misunderstood my question? Even from that, I don't see how you could get any moral standing on homosexuality.

Very Funny, but you didn't answer my question. The question is, if a woman likes an effiminate man, or a man likes a masculine woman, is that immoral?

What about in today's world? Is it immoral for women to like (be attracted to) Johny Depp or Orlando Bloom because their features are more Feminine (i.e. smoother face lines, skinnier bodies)? Or does it simply not matter because of what's between their legs? Or a man that likes, say Hilary Swank (who I think has more "masculine" facial features)? So is a woman only effeminate if she has feminine features? Does that grant morality for her to be a lesbian, since her features (physical characteristics) are masculine in nature?

Which was my point! Also, notice I didn't say anything about the morality of sex with a cow.... My best guess is that there IS no immorality associated with the ACT of sex with a cow (it would merely be a disgusting act), by force anyways, but that the immorality would be substituting a MUTUAL romantic relationship with a Forced sexual relationship. (Granted I'm sure there's an immorality of the sex act, but I don't think it's based on the idea of force...but I'm not too sure on those thoughts).

I'd like to take a quick stab at this, and see if my thoughts are on the right track. When dealing with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality, as RationalCop said, we're dealing with the aspect of MORE than just sexual intercourse. I suppose, if I were to define Romantic Relationship, I would say it's a MUTUAL attraction based on values held. MUTUAL meaning that BOTH parties agree/hold the same feelings/attraction. As already argued, any child molester or rapist, at least ACTING on said desires, is immoral because of a violation of rights. Your thoughts with "cow-loving" is also based on the same idea. FORCE is required to have sex with a cow. A cow, generally (since I don't have full knowledge of this area...for good reason), will not give you PERMISSION to have sex with it. As stated by Inspector and several others in the animal rights threads, FORCE is the only way we have to deal with animals, therefore NO MUTUAL relationship can occur between a cow and human. However, between two rights holding humans, a MUTUAL relationship CAN occur. So, if there is no FORCE initiated, and consent is given (i.e. no violation of rights)...how can it be immoral? Because it's not ideal? (to whom? and for what purpose?) This is the first time I've argued any of this, and like many of my other posts/thoughts, I'm sure it holds some flaws. Thanks for reading and any response given.