Pancho Villa

So my friend came by the other day, from out of state. So I banged my head against a wall 50 times. It was a special occasion though, so its okay.

I am the standard by which admiration is set. I guess I "admire" myself in the same way one can measure a ruler using itself.

Good thing I never said or implied that then, huh? So ice cream in now way contributes to your goals, like say survival? It has calories. You certainly need to intake them. There is no 'neutral' ground, an action either contributes to your life/happiness (and is good) or destroys it (and is bad.)

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee...on/12776299.htm Interesting story. read it all. Fascinating stuff.

If the man loses any time working (ie he cannot report in to work or has to rent tools from somewhere to go to work the next morning,) then that should be taken into account of any reckoning. For example, if he loses $150 in wages while the tools are gone, the theif not only has to give back / pay for new tools, but also pay for the lost wages.

To elaborate and correct all the errors made previously: There is never a case "against" any actions arbirarily hanging out in the middle of goddamn nowhere. In fact, there is never a successful negative case for anything - thats the agnostics' trick, and false logic. Pleasure is not 'innocent until proven guilty.' As someone else mentioned, pleasure is the sensation of the accomplishment of goals in line with your sense of life - and that can be mighty far off. You should not be lead around by your emotions, you should be lead around by your logical mind. Anyway, the proper process is to prove a case for masturbation. What is its purpose in your life? What are its costs? Are there any alternatives that are better/more efficient with your time?

Palestinian protestors storm Parliament Doublecheck: the article has changed since it was first posted this morning. Its opening originally read: Anyway, good grief.

Reuters: Australian Nobel winner was human guinea pig Now thats a hardcore man of science.

Its not just going 'against that idea,' it is working towards the destruction of the principle behind it. Men work by principles. If you act on such a whim, you are acting in accordance with the principle that such is what you should pursue - which is obviously not in your best interests. But, moreover, why bother with such a girl? Your time is best spent elsewhere. Masturbation is certainly far more rewarding a use of your time, and doesn't involve all the wonderful things that screwing around with an irrational woman gets to.

This thread makes me want to gougue my eyes out. Answer this question: what value does masturbation give you? What are its costs? Question is so simple as to be absurd.

If you want to be entertained by a whore, there are venues for that sort of thing.

Dump Clauswitz and think of applying Objectivist principles to war. Its fairly simple and straitforward. As to military tactics/strategy, that is covered by more modern writers than Clauswitz and is far more relevant.

You still failed to answer how exactly a woman who would drink to the point of bad decision making, go to 'second base' with you and then act like nothing happened/tell you it was a 'mistake' the next morning can be of any value to you. Am I saying you should have known beforehand? I think so, but I am a shrewd judge of character and you might be deficient in that area, so I can allow for that. But now, how can she be worth considering at all?

Lets end this real quick: Is hanging about a girl who will get drunk, get at least half naked with a random male, and then tell you it was all an "accident" the next morning something you value? If so, why? (by the way, that was rhetorical. If you honestly would value a woman with such deficiencies, may I suggest an alternative that would probably be best in the long haul?)

What games do you play? Would be nice to get a dedicated WoW/DoD group going on here. I always wanted to philosophically kill nazis. so, who here plays (or is interested in playing) World of Warcraft and/or Day of Defeat: Source?

Eventually I'll have a near-total artificially made body (minus the brain, of course,) and won't have to worry about bacteria or viruses. If you want some real long-term perspective thats about as positive as you can get, I think. Realistically, since we're reaching the limits of what we can do with chemicals to defeat bactera/viruses, gene therapy will come into the fore in the near future as the best way to treat really dangerous viruses and the like. Mmm...genetic alterations.

If the government is constitutionally unable to interfere with anything about industry, why is this a problem? What motive would, say, Halliburton have in buying off the government except to protect against regulation and/or regulate competitors out of business?

Ohnoes, Moose had a terrible hunting accident just the other day. Lets all hope he gets well soon.

The answer is: whatever is most efficient for each company to do. Certain areas might have different systems, there might be speed limits in some areas (especially areas with lots of turning or traffic) and in others - places like the I-10 for example - it could just be "go as fast as you'd like." People can't fine you, I shall note, unless you agree to be fined in some sort of contractual agreement. I don't know how this might be worked out, but I'm sure speeding would be far less a big deal in a LFC society.

Cox and Forkum have picked up on ths story: (Image hosted by Image Shack in order not to steal bandwidth. Please visit C&F, they're awesome.) I will continue to post as news agencies pick this story up. I think it'll make its rounds, quietly, through even the mainstream media.

Upon some introspection, I don't "regard with pleasure, wonder, and approval" anyone. I don't have a "high opinion of; esteem or respect" anyone who you would know. And I certainly don't "marvel or wonder at" anyone of note today. Joel. Joel is my best friend and of great help to me in hammering out my plans. That is the only man I admire.

Oh really?

As a side note, physically, the difference between male and female is a product of hard times. Genetically, the physical differences between men and women are (gradually) becoming less and less. Eventually there will be no 'masculine' or 'feminine' looks (though this is far, far down the line,) at least none significant enough to really say "x is femine" and "y is masculine." The two are on their way to converging, due to the fact that modern science has made life far easier on both sexes and each ahs to be far less specialized in order to succeed. At some point in time, child bearing was such a traumatic issue that women had to be geared specifically for the ordeal - big hips, breasts, etc. This left her, if not helpless, than significantly less efficate than she could be. Enter man. Specialized, only in the opposite; not equipped at all to nurse or feed the offspring, very well equipped to go out and grab a wolly mammoth or two for dinner. In the context of those times, such traits (and roles) were masculine/effeminate. Changing contextes, however, mean a change in the concepts of masculinity/femininity as applied to specific people. As technology progresses to the point where child-bearing and rearing becomes easier and easier on the woman, and specific traditional 'manly' traits are no longer required for the success of the male (hairy, very muscular, etc etc) the psyiological differences between the two sexes will decrease until, while the two will always (I think) be able to be told apart (even without the obvious genetalia references,) the difference between what it means to 'look' masculine and 'look' feminine will be more of a function of accessories/clothing/etc than actual physical traits (ie, cultural icons rather than actual physical traits corresponding to a specific role.) To this end, I think such data lends credit to the concept of masculinity/femininity being centered on attitudes towards the opposite sex rather than on specific physical traits. The essence of femininity depends on the context of the female. To the women of primitive times, who's role as child-bearer overwhelmed many other things, hero-worship is most certainly appropriately feminine. To empowered women who will (eventually) not be weaker than men, psyiologically? Then I think it would be more appropriately along the lines of intense admiration - I am female, this man is male, and good to boot. Rand was right, the nature of sexual relationships stem from the nature of the sexes. But, given genetic drift and the continuing convergence of male/female roles (and thus male/female body structures,) to set such a thing in stone, for all women, everywhere, for all time, is a wholly unhealthy and irrational mistake. Women of yesteryear (in general) had no reason to be strong, hulking brutes - men did. Women had every reason to have big hips (ease of childbirth, less chance of complications, less chance of death,) large breasts, etc etc and thus these traits were very much considered attractive. Though culture lags behind, you will note of course that such traits are becoming less and less 'attractive' over time - even unattractive in some circles. Large hips and breasts are no longer as big a deal as they were years ago, and of course big, hairy brutish looking guys are no longer the standard of masculine attractiveness (in general.) This points to a convergence of physical traits. Thus, to act masculine or feminine is to be male or female and act in accordance with one's nature. However, evolution tells us that our natures in some senses (and in particular in this sense) are not fixed. They may change over time, speaking in terms of a society (not of the individual.) While an irrational man cannot survive, is conisdered a fluke, a freak, and does not gain dominance within a society (well...not genetic irrationality, ie people genetically able to work on the level of animals,) traits like being strong or having big hips become less and less important as our rational minds reduce the pain and danger of childbirth and the physical effort needed to accomplish life-sustaining work. Finishing this train of thought (thinking on this as I type,) the only metaphysical aspects of femininity/masculinity here are, as JMeganSnow said, the attitudes towards people of the opposite gender. To be feminine is to enjoy the company of men, enjoy the role of the female during sex, find men desirable, etc etc. To be masculine is to enjoy the company of women, enjoy the role of a male during sex, and finding women desirable. I still have a problem with homosexuality in the context of today's realities, but my question now becomes: is the objection I (and, similarly, Rand) had with homosexuality a nature of the divergence of male/female structures, and thus their appropriate roles (form follows function, after all,) or masculine/feminine metaphysical realities (ie, their natures,) of all men and all women, even in some far-off future when you or I would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a similarly clothed man and woman? It is troubling to say the least. But I have yet to discern the usefulness of speculating on how things will be when men and women are significantly different. So I think I have an answer that works for us, given current realities. What say ye?

What? Stupid people being stupid? Okay. Why does this need a whole thread of outrage and silliness over it? The only way I (who happen to be mexican) could give a damn about this is if they bothered me in particular, in which case I would discreetly break their arms, to give them a proper existential sensation of the kind of world they wish to make. Problem solved.

Since I've never seen a bearded woman before, I'd hardly classify you are girly. Still, get a haircut hippie.