Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Styles2112

  1. You twisted and misinterpretted my words. The military uniform (as I wear it.) is set to represent all the folks who wear it. All soldiers salute officers because of their achievements and responsibilities. We march in formation because it shows uniformity and discipline. The same with our bunks. None of those will insult or offend a said soldier (or shouldn't, by any means). There are MANY muslims who serve in our American Army who follow (more or less) the same rules as the rest of the muslims. They serve this country just as proudly as the rest of us (regardless of their flaws) and we don't need to insult THEM by putting a stupid cartoon on a MILITARY uniform. But moreso, as I said before, it would serve no purpose other than to add fuel (not demoralize) the enemy's motivation. But, if you'd like, please feel free to go over there with that T-shirt on. Not terribly different than christians in Northern Ireland... Quite frankly...it's not any different than ANY OTHER terrorist group (be it christians, pro-life, or other hate-groups.) We just choose to put the focus (currently) on muslims. Everyone has to have something to be angry about. Some folks just get stupider than others about it. Now...THAT is a nice counter. Make them look silly. I think that's how you fight this sort of thing. It may not be terribly successful. But, I like it.
  2. True....I've got my V8 turbo diesel (ford)...though I can't get "mindless" thrill seeking out of it, since it doesn't go above 90 mph (and even THAT's not really good for it). I get mind thrills pulling people out of snow banks with it.....I imagine THAT'S mindless too.
  3. Well, now we have breast pumps and weird things that men can put around their neck that the bottle goes into so they can get the "joy of breast feeding."
  4. Well, like they said....with such a large population of younger folk...the government can't afford to lose their support. If we want to hurt Iran...that's where we need to hit them. Take their young, metaphorically, away from them.
  5. Iran is not planning to start a war with us, at least, not on a military front. (Though, I'm sure they fund terrorist acts.) They are, however, thumbing their nose at us trying to get us to invade them, where they WOULD have a better chance at defeating us. They've seen that it's been extremely successful NOT to fight a war, but to lure us in and beat at us over time. Plus, they know that should we invade, we'd be spread even thinner than we are now....making us more ripe for attack. Their one mistake is that they've pissed off Europe enough that Europe would (at this point) back (possibly front) the attack. That may be more than Iran can handle. We'll see. Right now they're just blowing smoke out their backside.
  6. Perhaps they should, that doesn't change the fact that it is an innappropriate item to put on military clothing. If we do that, then we can put WHATEVER we want on our uniforms. (In which case, mine would be covered in "Calvin and Hobbes.") If civilians CHOOSE (key word here) to wear such an item, that is up to them. One should not be FORCED to wear a political cartoon. That would oppression (of the strangest kind). I agree with demoralizing them. However moving the ENTIRE Islamic culture to the extremist side only gives THEM more ammo. The terrorists would be MORE demoralized if they realized they DID NOT have the support of their fellow country-men. Thus such "insults" only give them more fuel for their hate, and possibly give them more people to join their cause, all over a subjective view of a "character" in a religion. I will agree that the terrorists need to be exterminated, though, I rather not see our soldiers, my friends, and co-workers, killed or hurt in the process.
  7. AHHH. I see now. You're right. I lost the context when it was applied to only one style of vehicle. Of course, if she was around today, it'd probably changed to "thieves, mystics, and SUV owners." No offense to SUV owners....
  8. Well, I was actually arguing that we (the sexes) function differently on a physiological level (i.e. body builds, hormones...etc), and it's been REINFORCED throughout cultural history. Though, much like that forum it, it was probably missed that I said that the sexes should be TREATED equally (i.e that if a woman want to play football with the varsity team in High school, and is GOOD enough to do so, she ought to be allowed). Though, I'm sure, that back then (and even now) I phrased things wrong and people took the wrong idea from what I was saying.
  9. Umm. NO. The military uniform is NOT a proper place for a joke. Nor would it have any effect on the moral of the extremist terrorists. In fact...it would probably put our soldiers at more of a risk. It would actually help the terrorist cause and recruiting. I seem to think that that's what's caused wars throughout history (in one form or another). Somehow, I don't see it as the 'key' to winning. Personally, I think the key to winning the "war" is to convince the few rational facultied people over there that the only way to get US out of there is for them to get their compatriots to stop bombing their own people in an attempt to kill us. It is the responsibility of the the country's people to take control for themselves. So far, very little of them have shown that initiative or understanding (there are some, and I do enjoy reading the articles and stories where the people have turned in terrorists, because they're sick of it...and they SHOULD be.) Again, they already know that....trust me it hasn't helped. Funny that since this has happened there have been MORE terrorist attacks, and recruiting for the terrorists has gone up. Still, WE struggle to get anybody in uniform over here. Somewhat ironic, I think. And one of the funny points about EXTREMISM is that those folk believe in their cause/hate so purely that they will not give up until they, or we, are dead (I'd, personally, prefer them). They will not "give up" fighting us. That suggests rational faculty on their part...and you'd give them too much credit at that.
  10. I don't know a woman that DOES think she's pretty enough....Though, I'd say my wife complains about it a lot less than anyone else I know. LOL I got myself in trouble at a college forum discussing the relationship between men and women. We were talking about equality between the sexes, and I made a comment, based on a Rush song, saying that, while I believe equality of sexes, I don't believe we were made equal (i.e. certain things are GENERALLY easier for a certain sex, based on physiology). And when I address some of the psychological aspect of it, I mentioned that I thought that women wanted to be "gently dominated," or protected by men. And on the same line, that Men wanted to be the protector or aggressor. (There are, of course, exceptions to the rule...) Things that have been ingrained by cultural history and such. This, of course, angered many a feminists in the room (which was a bad room to be in, since it was clearly a "man-bashing" session anyways). I was lucky enough to attend with a friend (female) who understood what I was getting at, and agreed with me. It still didn't make for a happy crowd. That said, I completely agree with everything Jmegansnow said. The lyrics to the Rush song are- "Animate" POLARIZE ME SENSITIZE ME CRITICIZE ME CIVILIZE ME COMPENSATE ME ANIMATE ME COMPLICATE ME ELEVATE ME Goddess in my garden Sister in my soul Angel in my armor Actress in my role Daughter of a demon-lover Empress of the hidden face Priestess of the pagan mother Ancient queen of inner space Spirit in my psyche Double in my role Alter in my image Struggle for control Mistress of the dark unconscious Mermaid of the lunar sea Daughter of the great enchantress Sister to the boy inside of me My counterpart - my foolish heart A man must learn to rule his tender part A warming trend - a gentle friend A man must build a fortress to defend A secret face - a touch of grace A man must learn to give a little space A peaceful state - a submissive trait A man must learn to gently dominate -Neil Peart
  11. [split from an earlier thread.] How did a driver of a Hot Rod get thrown in with thieves and mystics? Why is driving a hot rod faking happiness? Is driving a truck faking happiness? I might have missed something here, but I fail to make the connection? What if it's a Hot Rod that I built, ground up? I only ask because you/she brought it up.... seems very contextual to me....
  12. Another biased one- Superbowl XXXI -Brett Favre throws a touchdown pass on the first pass play of the Green Bay Packers offensive touch. He always plays to the best of his ability. He always plays HIS style of game. And he plays for the LOVE of the game. While I wasn't impressed with this year's superbowl, the Steelers deserve some mention for being the sixth seed and taking out the 1,2,3 combo in the playoffs onroute to being superbowl champions.
  13. Are we just talking about social drinking? Or college/binge drinking. I might say that if one, accidently, gets drunk in social setting (i.e. is having a good time, has lost track of the amount of drinks..), I wouldn't call that immoral. On the other hand, if one's sole purpose is to be puking one's mind out in a toliet all night due to large doses of alcohol PURPOSELY ingested, that would be immoral. I've only been truly drunk once in my life. It was an accident (sort of). I had been holding my liquor quite well all night, and through the "deviousness" of a friend, mixed one too many liquors with one another. This, of course, was at college, and I did not have to drive (since I would walk home). I knew ahead of time that if the possibility arose, that I would be in a safe position. Likewise, I have been buzzed or slightly tipsy on a couple different occasions, and those have been on complete accident by either drinking too much to fast, or too much without enough food in the stomach. Usually after such point, I stop drinking until I regain full control of my faculties. As a side note, I've never been truly drunk since that first time, as I have no interest in having that feeling again. I tend to like FULL control of my body and mind.
  14. So, one might argue that suicide is the "human" form of Natural selection. Those who choose to think, and those who choose not to? SoftwareNerd, Yes, I think that was what I was trying to get at. Apparently, there's no simple answer. I'll probably have to think about this for a bit more before coming up with other questions or ideas.....Interesting thoughts though. Thanks for the response!
  15. SoftwareNerd, Forgive me, please, as I'm not that great at articulating what I mean to say. Under Objectivist ethics, life is the standard of value from which all other values are derived. I suspect this is so, because without life there is nothing (i.e. we'd all be rocks, or the like...). So, in a "hopeless" suicide situation (i.e. not referring to a vegetative state, or terminal disease) the individual has simply chosen death, or, not to think anymore. However, despite what many might feel (probably a key word here), isn't being alive, in itself, meaningful? I've seen a couple posts on here, and theoretical ideas of saying,"I can't live my live to my fullest potential (be it government issues, family issues, job issues, whatever...) so, THEREFORE my life is meaningless." I realize at this point I'm not sure how to phrase my question to get the most out of it, so please bear with me (if you will). Isn't having the life, to begin with, meaningful? Or is the suicide justified because of the "wrong" choice of "not to think?" (i.e. consequences of actions). I realize that I'm probably not getting much across, I can't think of a better way to say/ask this stuff. If you can figure out what I'm trying to get at, I appreciate your (or anyone else's) thoughts on it. Thanks.
  16. SoftwareNerd, Interesting post. But, given what was said before, don't you CHOOSE to have a meaningful life? Or, maybe rephrased, those who who "decide" their life is meaningless have made the choice not to think, and therefore the choice to terminate their own life? If one is thinking, and life is the standard of value, wouldn't there be meaning in that? Sorry if this belongs in another topic. Thanks for any response, though.
  17. It's a true rarity to see "appaloosa" and "smart" (at least not followed by @ss) in the same sentence. My wife and I have Arabs. Which are the definition of "Too smart for their own good." My "ride" is a 95 Ford F-250- 7.3 Turbo Diesel, given to me by my parents for graduation (college). Knowing, then, that my fiance' (now wife) would be hauling horses. The body is getting pretty beat up, but the engine is doing just fantastic. And considering the price of trucks (and reliability of the new ones) I'll definitely be putting money into this one so long as the engine continues to run.
  18. Styles2112

    Videogame Music

    I'm a HUGE fan of "The Legend of Zelda" music. Especially "Windwaker." I think it's right up there with the Final Fantasy music.
  19. And, somewhat strangely, I have, virtually, no focus on production. My major focus is on musicianship and lyrics (usually the flow between the two). I appreciate good production, but it's not required (although, we may be working with different ideas of production). Unfortunately, in my mind, production cannot make a good song out of either of the two you listed. Groovenstein- "Contrast that with that "She F-in Hates Me" (the one that ripped off Anthrax, IIRC), which just sounds to me like a chorus of two bar phrases thrown together." Isn't "She F'n Hates Me" by Puddle of Mudd and not Nickelback or am I thinking of a different song by the same name? There is some music, though, that I just listen to because it's fun (nickelback being one of them). I'm in the process of putting together a "Dirty Rock" CD for my wife using songs like "Closer (NIN)," "Figured You Out (Nickelback)," "You Shook Me All Night Long (AC/DC)," and a few others that I can't think of at the moment. Maybe it's my imagination, but I don't think we're meant to read into those lyrics too much. Contrast that to Rush ("Cold Fire" in particular) where the lyrics have much deeper meaning (and better musicianship). Granted, I'll always take a Rush, King Crimson, Yes, or Mahavishnu Orchestra first, but they're not always as fun as that stuff that is good for, well, I'll just say, background music...
  20. In music, I think you're meant to hear the whole piece and most (to nearly everyone who posted) only listen to one part or one area of a song/piece. This is, of course, a personal opinion, but when I listen to something EVERYTHING needs to be there. I like some metal/hard rock. I listen to things that I, myself, personally write and have to decide whether it would sound better clean (and on what instrument) or "dirtied" up a bit. It really depends on what the song (lyrics) is trying to convey. It's my thought that the music needs to reflect the idea being put forth. So, YES, much of metal is heavy and dreary because the lyrics themselves are dreary. That's not to say that it couldn't be happy or life affirming. Sometimes, one loves something SO much that a cleanly produced instrument cannot create the FULLNESS of that emotion. Distortion can. I have many arguments with my bassist because he has the same basic view as you (i.e. distortion is just to cover poor musicianship) to which I completely disagree. I really think that each sound needs to serve it's purpose, be it a violin, cowbell, distorted guitar, or school book (think John Cage). I have heard some AMAZINGLY talented metal bands (and I can judge despite my not liking their music), most of which are underground, or not well known.
  21. A who didn't do many soundtracks, but I really (REALLY) enjoyed John Corigliano's soundtrack to "The Red Violin." So much so that I went out and sought other works by the feature violinist, Joshua Bell. For those who don't know it, both the movie and soundtrack are well worth the visit.
  22. Assuming that I understand things correctly, Ms. Rand had three catagories for people- Producers- Those using reason and intelligence to produce valuable goods for trading or personal satisfaction Looters- Those who use the initiation of force to take valuable goods, generally from the producers Moochers- Those who accept charity, yet do nothing to take steps to becoming a producer (i.e. your example). While no real initiation of force is used, Moochers will often play upon guilt (see: Rearden's brother Philip) or ignorance. Hope this helps some, and if anyone else sees any corrections that need to be made, I appreciate the help.
  23. I'll be fully interested to see if Germany actually does anything about this. I'd hate to think that they're all talk and no action.
  24. Yeah, but that's kind of the way it is in the books, too. I think that's a lot of the teen angst part. I also think, in many ways, that it's not actually Harry's fault, as people keep throwing it in his face. Still I prefered the third movie to this one. I thought the acting was a bit more crisp in that one. I still think this one was decent. I'm am hoping for a better "Order of the Pheonix." Hey, not all the Stars Wars movies were great, either.
  • Create New...