Styles2112
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Styles2112
-
-
Styles, you said she would have cared if she was in the reversed role (because of her pride). Now you say she wouldn't have cared if she was in the reversed role. Am i "misreading" you again?
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.
And i asked you to explain for us how her statement logically convinced you that you were wrong in feeling the way you felt in the first place, or do you get convinced just by the assertion of a different opinion?See above
[i know you have said "And just like any contradiction in one's life, I wasn't happy until I let that silly thing go", so i am guessing that you believe "that thing" was wrong since you felt happy when you let it go. But what if you let go of the wrong thing? (for there to be a "contradiction" there have to be two things contradicting each other). The "contradiction" would have still disappeared (and you would have felt happy) if you let go of the other thing instead of the thing that you let go, no? so how did you establish that you did the right thing from the statement she made to you?]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. 
-
There are tons of hostages who have been released unharmed.
Yeah, I heard about this on the news. Assuming that she's telling the truth, which I suspect that she is, I retract my former statement wishing that she be thrown back.
As I do mine. When I read the former article, I thought it said she made those statements AFTER being released. My bad.
"HG," you make it seem as if you're dissapointed that the so-called "freedom fighters" aren't coming up with better strategies to promote their cause. What is their cause and why do you support it, if you do?I could think of more fundamental points to criticize these people for--like for example that they are barbarians. That seems to be overlooked in your sarcastic remarks over the way in which they are trying to promote their cause.
Maybe I read it wrong, Felipe, but I think she was sarcastically pointing that very thing out. If she responds, we'll know then.
-
Styles, i am not misreading you and i am not putting words into your mouth: these are words in my own mouth . I did not say that you did not think before making your decision (how could i insult you like that, Styles). I know you did think, but it was after she pointed out that "the important thing is the time we spend together and not who pays", or words to that effect. You say that this statement from her pointed out your irrationality. Forgive me, but I simply can't see how it did that, and it is the purpose of this (stage of the) discussion to establish if indeed you were being irrational or not, qua man. Perhaps you could tell us how her statement logically established your irrationality and we can move on. "Pointing out" your irrationality does not mean just stating her opinion.
Ah, so what you are now telling us is that your wife would only see this irrationality when it's in another person (like you), and yet she is the same herself? So, it appears the argument she gave you was only because she was not the one in the "reversed" role - she doesn't actually believe that "it doesn't matter who pays, it's the time spent together"?
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.
It isn't necessarily so for a woman.So there's a double standard?
-
Why would there be a dichotomy between being a sex object and "a mind of your own" ? In fact, the only way a woman can become a sex object attractive to rational men is through the use of her mind.
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?"
-
The point is exactly that for a woman, seducing a millionaire IS making it on her own, while the same cannot be said about a 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?
-
Could you elaborate?"It shows the difference between the mujahedeen and the Americans, it shows the mujahedeen are good people fighting an honourable fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very bad way," she said.
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.
-
Styles, i am not limiting romantic love to the issue of money. An example can isolate only one thing because it is demonstrating that there is a difference between the two genders in at least some of their values in romantic relationships (and then we can proceed to investigating the source of that difference, whether "common irrationality" or their different "natures." From there we can proceed to address the question of morality, not directly from the money issue.). The example could have been on another aspect completely - if it could also achieve the purpose of demonstrating this difference. Are we okay now?
.
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.
This is the kind of answer i was looking for. I simply want to find out if the woman would also have felt as bad as you felt (pre-marriage, as your confession beautifully shows) if you were the one paying, and whether this bad feeling you had was just an irrational feeling or it was something that is connected to reality. It seems that your feeling changed only when she assured you that she was okay with it. She misled you!
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.
-
Meanwhile, those who have not taken this little 'poll' (and are willing to) could still do so now (before we get lost in the maze of the debate), please? Hunterrose? LaVache? Q? RC? (Styles and GC, i would have preferred you answered the hypothetical question as it is. Thanks. And oh, perhaps you could be kind enough to also ask your good wives the same question - exactly as it is in the hypothetical situation - just when you are getting married? that would be really helpful.)
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.
-
I have no doubt that China is US #1 enemy, and it's a threat that will only grow with time. I'm not worried about Russia, or even Belarus, because I know that as the old generations die, the young will push for democracy, and pro-West policy.
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...
-
Perhaps we could settle this by asking many rational people on this forum (and other Objectivist forums): How would you (the men) feel about getting married to a rich executive woman and moving into her house because you can not afford a house of your own (from your small income), getting one of her cars because you can not afford a car of your own, having her fund your big wedding because you do not have the kind of income that can finance it, and going on a honeymoon that is fully funded by her because the place you chose for your honeymoon (the mighty victoria falls in Zambia!) is a bit too expensive for you, but quite cheap for her? Would you be comfortable with this situation as a man? Would you be quite proud if the whole world was told this exciting love story on CNN? (i admit that if most rational men here will answer 'yes' to these questions, i will have not much further to contribute to this discussion - and neither will my other "new idea" have any chance of being accepted 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
-
I actually started reading Eldest again yesterday and I did happen to notice that. The scene with Arya talking about the Quan clan. She refutes their belief in muttering to the air, and I immediately loved her. Somehow I missed it last time. Though, I will admit that ever since becoming an objectivist I read books in a different style.
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.
-
Featherfall, the relevant situations around those conversations are ONLY the ones i gave: don't steal my example!
Okay, let me change the example so that there is less room for 'stealing'.
We have two couples on a joint wedding.
Couple 1: woman is a low-paid secretary, getting married to a top executive of the company she works for (a man).
Couple 2: man is a low-paid secretary getting married to a top executive in the company he works for (a woman).
Do you think the male secretary in couple 2 will be as comfortable and as happy with her situation as the female secretary in couple 1? do you think as a man he will be as proud of his "big catch" as the woman in couple 1 will be (of her "big catch")?
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.
-
No Styles, when i said "ah, but there is force!", i was not making the point that this makes it immoral. i was just quoting you. And my next (rhetorical) question "is milking a cow immoral?" was to show you that you can apply force on your cow without it being immoral.
it is not what you are doing to the cow that makes it immoral, but what you are doing to yourself.
You have rightly admitted that this act is immoral, and you have honestly admitted that you do not know why, since 'force' is not the issue here. You would not be confused about the issue if you accepted the reasoning for why homosexuality is also immoral. You understand what i'm saying?
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.
-
Here's a deal: Why don't you keep Johnny Depp and his fellow eurodhimmi pansies, and we'll stick with John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe.
Be careful though: Ideas have consequences. If you dig the likes of Depp today, you may easily find yourself worshipping Allah tomorrow.
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? -
Suppose you are casting a movie in the 1950s. You need to find an actor for a character who gets noticed by the opposite sex thanks to attributes like loveliness, playfulness, pretty clothes and sparkling jewelery, a bold lipstick and a subtle eye paint, a silky hair and an iridescent headband--and an enticingly swinging hip. You have to make an objective decision about whether the role would be best played by Marilyn Monroe or by John Wayne.
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)?
The physical characteristics of men and women have EVERYTHING to do with their behavior.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?
-
Ah, but sex with a cow would also involve force!
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).
-
It is this preoccupation with one aspect of morality - rights of the other individual - in an argument in which it is your side that is bringing up the same issue of "lack of choice" as a possible justification for homosexuality's non-immorality - that led me previously to discuss 'desires' themselves as either moral or immoral, but this did not go on very well, so i tried another argument, which still involves action: having sex with cows. (forgive that very long sentence). So here goes:
What if a person is instead born with this 'tendency' to want sex with cows. This will not involve violation of rights, so this example omits that aspect completely so that we can stick with the essentials of my argument. But the question remains: can we judge this action of having sex with cows as immoral? what if the person was born with that 'natural tendency'? [warning: do not steal ANY of our premises in your answer - except the ones you have not rejected!!!]
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.
Jill Carroll Released
in Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
Posted
I'm sooo writing a song with that title.