Felix

That would be neat. "I know Kung Fu!"

Nice.

Values play an important role in relationships, no doubt about that. But I doubt that they are the single cause of attraction. The importance of values for what has elsewhere been called moral sexual attraction, doesn't invalidate the fact that men and women are initially attracted to different things. How else do you explain that Playboy has a circulation of 3.1 million while Playgirl has a circulation of only 100.000 (50% of which are sold to gay men)?

I stumbled across this 3 minute video on youtube. Can someone verify what it says? I'd like to know this for sure.

This is a good point. I feel like this, but haven't been able to back it up with reason, as I saw none. Which negative consequences follow from hedonistic physical-only sex? Can you expand on that? It would be helpful.

Just get firefox and that will kill all the popups.

Hm. Interesting topic. I think that men who go to strip clubs don't necessarily have to be immoral, but I'd have to think it through. I've never been to a strip club, but here's my argument: Really loving someone takes time and commitment if it's to be more than just a feeling that can pop up and vanish. You really need to get to know a person. Anything before that stage has the same status as watching a stripper. It's superficial. You take one tiny part of the entire person, the part which you happen to value, and indulge in that. Feelings run high then, but I doubt that's moral desire. Moral desire would require the interest to know more about that person, to talk to that person and to see if your initial superficial attraction is met, too. Under these requirements it's possible to build up love, that is: your full appreciation of the other person and the other way around. It's impossible to do this before out of epistemological reasons alone. But it doesn't just happen. Initial attraction may take place as a direct reaction to a value one sees out of context. Love requires both to want to know more about the other person and to share what's on your mind. The only moral problem with strip clubs is then that you sacrifice the possibility of love for the initial hedonistic pleasure of getting good feelings from seeing a value, but out of context (initial attraction). For men who don't have the time to really get to know a person and share what they think, the strip club is the only option they have left. Of course it's way less than what you get out of true love, but it's all these guys can get at the moment. If this is not a general thing, and just short term, I see no moral problems, actually. They try to get the most out of life they can. And if they knowingly just indulge in these pleasures to relax, I don't see it as more wrong than going to the movies or eating ice cream. They haven't given up the higher value, they just knowingly accept a lesser one because at the moment they can't get the full package. There are of course men, who don't care to go the way of connecting to another person to such a high degree. The initial feeling fades away because they don't care enough about a real relationship and then they see some value in someone else and get attracted to that one. They are doomed to jump from one hedonistic initial attraction to another and that's all they'll ever get. That's where the immorality begins. You sacrifice a higher value to a lower one out of ignorance, fear or unwillingness to connect.

I second that suggestion.

This sounds like a lot of fun.

Yeah! That's really sad. He's been a nice and happy guy.

"Tier" is used in the same way "animal" is used in English. So you can say that man is an animal in German, too. And you can also use the word to seperate man from (other) animals. What I meant by the Ethics reference was more that the fact that man is a living being is relevant. This does also refer to plants, of course.

This one puzzles me a bit. Rand makes very clear statements about animal consciousness. Namely that they operate on built-in knowledge and instinct. Also, the fact that man is an animal (and therefore a living being) is of crucial importance to Objectivist Ethics. Man is defined as a rational animal. So you have to know what an animal is and what rational means to define man. Knowledge of animals would then be the first half of the definition of man. Hence knowledge of animals is relevant to understanding the nature of man.

An unsolved liquidity problem results in a crash. So I guess the Fed would jump in. Given what aequalsa has said, they've already done it once. But I think our simple "Just keep the money level high enough and rising and the economy will be fine"-model is too simplified. I'd have to do some research on that, but I don't have time for that this month. What the Fed's goals are is a good question as it operates practically without supervision.

I'm not really sure this would happen again. The money we have today doesn't need to be backed by anything. It's "backed" by whatever the Fed buys with it. So in case the banks have a liquidity problem, they can go to the Fed and get money. In theory, this could prevent any crash as the Fed can appear as the lender of the last resort and pump out new money at will which they usually do by buying government bonds on the free market.

You got that right. And given that there's only a certain amount of money banks can lend out depending on their reserves, the central bank controls the sum of money in circulation quite effectively. The point I was making in my famous (or infamous ) debitism thread was that given that this money comes attached with someone having to pay the corresponding debt back plus interest, the sum of money would actually go down if you leave the system alone without new debt and the corresponding money entering the system. I've also heard (again this is unverified, so don't nail me down on this one) that the Fed has been selling most of the initial gold it once owned and continues to do so. Hence the "original" money, that is: the money backed by goods and not debt goes down further, leaving even less money if the flow of new money should stop. This trend could be turned back by the Fed selling the debt and buying goods like gold instead. At least in theory. But I don't see it happen. Also note that this goods-backed money is 20% of the Fed's backing at best. That's 2% (20% Fed backing times 10% of money supply), well at least under 5% of the total amount of money in circulation. That's maybe enough for the interest payments on the due debt for the rest of the money supply. If this wasn't so sad, the absurdity would make me laugh.

Depends upon what you call money. If you mean dollar bills and coins, that money is issued by the Fed. They have it printed/minted and buy either private debt or (mostly) government bonds. But that's only about 10-20% of what counts as money, the other 90% are created by fractional reserve banking (lending money until they have reached the limit of 10% required "reserves" (= Fed paper)). I've heard that this reserve ratio has been lowered, but I have no source for that claim. But whatever the ratio is, the principle remains the same.

If you and 100 million people start exchanging (emmitting) IOUs, there is inflation first (in the short run) as there is new "money", but no new products. The whole thing changes over time as they have to offer products and services to pay their debt. So after the new money is already introduced, you have a rise in products and services, but no rise in "money", hence deflation to the same degree you have had inflation before. So you have long-term price stability, even though this short boost will cause fluctuations in prices. If you also have interest payments on the IOUs, you have to offer more services and products to pay the interest, too and therefore a net deflation in the long run. Uh oh, I started talking debitism again.

From what I know of her (and I admit that it's very little), she's a caricature of a hardcore republican. Does she really try to disprove evolution in one of her books? Oh, and Moose: Just saw your new sig. Not sure how long you have it already but I had a good laugh. Thanks.

Jesus Camp Trailer Very scary movie about Christian indoctrination aimed at little children. (Mod's note: Merged two similar threads. -sN)

That's not my shop. Just like the stuff they have.

Kyle, I've been reading your thread. It read (in style) like some of my old threads. And I must say that you are making the same mistake I still happen to make. It's your method of inquiry that is flawed. Namely, you come here to learn. You have a certain idea of what's right (that principles should be caveat-laden) and you want to know why this is not the case. You receive answers. So far so good. Instead of working on understanding these answers, you insist on your initial understanding and start defending it with all you can. Your focus in your responses to the answers is wrong. I have done that, too - several times. And more often than I'd like to I still catch myself doing this. From someone who is currently working on that behavior, here's a tip: It helps to step back. Focus on understanding first. Don't focus on being understood. You are. You just think you're not, because you don't listen hard enough, because you're preoccupied with your current view. I've read this Thoreau-quote after one of my futile attempts to "make the others understand": It's tough. It requires that you actually take a step back in your knowledge and set something you're certain as hell about back to enter the state in which it is possible for you to learn something new, that you may have overlooked. But it's the only way to really start understanding. There's also a nice Zen-story that I'd like to tell: Your questions have been answered. You just don't see it. You have a lot of reading and thinking ahead of you.

Have you heard that there are secessionist movements in New Hampshire and Vermont? http://www.republicofnh.org/ They refuse to share implicit responsability for the predations of the US and declare that the government no longer bears any relation to the union they originally joined. You're not the only ones who want the good old constitution back. Okay, this guy is a Christian and he may have different solutions to the problem. Just wanted to let you know.

To comment on your essay (and not the format): It's a good description of common culture. Giving up your mind for comfort and losing both. But I doubt that it's a conscious, willful act for many people. I think their mind just fades away in unconsciousness and lack of mental focus for most.

As far as I remember, Galt leaves and then what is described is the decay of the motor company due to the altruistic management practices.

This is scary. If you take a key and slightly hit it into the lock with a hammer, you can open the door. Here's the link.