Jon P

I mean caring for all the fluffy animals and forests. I don't think I'm ever going to post here again, Au Revoir.

I hadn't read all the posts, sorry if I started from phase1. Just thought by responding to the first post was how the people here liked it, sticking to the topic. I did read a few posts down from page 1, and read a few posts before mine. Good, that keeps us from getting off topic. I usually ask people what they mean by words, just so they can tell me not to think real hard about them. In turn, it assures they wont quote me on the basic things that I wouldn't want them to think real hard about. This is a project. Hmmm, will I lose if I don't come up with one Right now? This is what I'm finding hard to truly understand, is the value of one mans life, primarily your own, the utmost important thing, regardless of circumstance? Maybe this isn't the place for such a topic, but it's something I'd like to understand, rather than creating a new thread.

I haven't been lied to about anything, and I don't deny there are maniacs among all groups who profess things to support their cause, but why would they make claims that don't do anything but cause controversy? I'll look at those threads, and the links you gave me, I'll also do some googling. I'm not denying that there are quasiclones proclaiming what ever it is they've been told to say.... dupes and pawns, just not sure there is reason for environmentalists to do it. I've seen little activist groups growing up, and i've had my talks with them on the streets. They're always preaching crap and I've talked with them, they've even gotten my phone number out of me, and called and hassled me to join their cause and join their meetings, and spread their documented beliefs. And you're right, when you actually talk to some of these people, some of them just blurt out what they have been conditioned to say. Caring about the environment should never be associated with being Quasi anti-mans though. You can rephrase it all you like, and make a list of all the people who you think can't give you solid facts, but the fact remains that true environmental issues are very important, and when evidence has surfaced that certain things are causeing damage to the environment, they should be able to anounce these things to the world. Now, assuming you are correct, that the evidence presented by environmentalists has completely no base, which I don't see why – but if you are correct, I will agree that the people claiming these "facts" are quasi modo religious types..

Ok, clearer what you are implying. I didn't know there was only two categories of environmentalists, did you come to this conclusion? I'm no expert on the subject myself, but I was under the impression that global warming is a natural occurrence, but the process itself has accelerated due to industrial effects. I don't think global warming was the thesis I had in mind aynway, it was just a branch of one supporting sentence... I would have to do some googling if you were to argue this one, I'd rather just set the topic aside. This is interesting, i'd like to read this article if you would ever come across it again. I don't find any objections to preserving mother nature to the best we can. But it's likely we will still dig into it for its resources. It's all how you interpret them, there are probably those who fit your description of evil, and there are those who don't. I think I rationalized my way of thinking to some objective degree. There's still things I think I took into consideration in the subject, that you may have overlooked, and likewise you may think i have overlooked. Otherwise, you can think I'm some kind of subjectivite - giving my subjective interpretation of objectivity through my subjectively interpretive eyes. Nice paragraphing by the way.

They're not all Quasimodo monsters. My friends sister is a pretty normal woman who is an ecologist. She is grateful to what this country has provided for her and her family. She is out of the country right now working on environmental issues, I think in Cuba or Columbia? How about the ecologists who pursue fuel replacement energies, or the ones that encourages you to recycle, or the ones who detest toxic waste dumps, which kill innocent people living in the vicinity. They’re not outside throwing rocks at your windows are they? Their idea of harmony isn’t wearing fig leaves over their private parts in the Garden of Eden, most of them are like you and me, not monsters. They just want a healthier environment, and it’s their Job, above all else. The crazy environmentalists in the media are a rare breed I would think. The media over proportionalizes such people.

I think preserving the earth serves the utmost important human need, and that's living. To ensure survival of the earth is to ensure the survival of the human race. So that’s what I think, they’re here to ensure everyones survival. And to ensure our entire races survival, is to ensure their own. So really, they are ensuring their own survival, the basic motive behind their actions. Even the extremists (Quasi-modo religious devotes?) who have their foots cramped in their mouths, are really just trying to survive. I did acknowledge that there is no irrefutable evidence that proves we are killing our world. I haven’t taken a firm stand on this issue, but some, whose jobs are to study the environment, seem to believe we are killing it, and if it is a possibility, I have no problem with groups of ecologists and environmentalists alike taking necessary steps to ensure I live. I’ll support them in ensuring my own survival, and the survival of my children, and childrens children, and childrens childrens children. So you can just call me cautious.

Just to paint a clearer picture, I believe the intentions of environmentalists are golden. They are the ones who study the relationship between human and earth, they are the ones who may point fingers at what they consider the cause of environmental damage. Usually the fingers they point, are pointed at capitalisms way of life, as I was trying to say in my first post. They don't have any problems with how the government works, it's how the government effects the earth that they are interested in. This is not a communist party, this is a field thats sole purpose it to work toward protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=environmentalism)

"The environmentalists you are talking about are the irrational quasi-religious kind." I don't think we're talking about the same people. If you did respond to my post though, could you provide evidence supporting this statement? Maybe you can reply to the first post with what you think environmentalism means, and what comes to mind, instead of replying to mine. Haha, funny. The answer is no. I'm glad to see that most people agree with me. It's also what I want to think. I've had no problems believing that environmentalists have anything but good intentions

To me, environmentalism essentially means, many environmentalists - environmentalists who concern themselves with the ecological problems our world is facing. Big factories, fuel powered automotive transportation, etc – these things release gaseous fumes into the atmosphere which is causing our delicate system of life to directly react. There are men walking this earth today, who have in their life time witnessed an industrial age that has caused a breach in the ozone layer, has melted polar ice caps, and has caused rise in global warming. While environmentalists concern themselves with these ecological issues, that means discouraging things that capitalists generally feel dependant on. Environmentalism indirectly attacks capitalism, and their current ways of life, factories, big businesses, pollution, and society as a whole. Environmentalist’s intentions are good. Their goal is to maintain a healthy planet that can sustain life. Capitalists have a different success story in mind. Capitalists want a healthy economy, and they want it to grow. These are two conflicting views. Continued rate of pollutants will not end in inevitable death of our species, per se, but consistent increase in pollution will end in nothing good, and it’s important to remember this. Without a world, where could Objectivists live and hold their values? No world, means no happy societies. I personally believe that it is important for environmentalism as I understand it, to exist. While fuel remains, ethanol is on the rise, an environmentally safe alternative. Some people, like my neighbor, are buying hybrid cars, which use much less gas per the mile. I think the best term to refer to these people who are environmentally conscious, are "Nice guys". Nice guys like my neighbor, doing their part for the environment, while saving a buck or two on gas prices.

Thanks for spending the time. I've learned a lot from this thread, thanks.

I'll accept this, but if a spider does not have some form of awareness that assists in making decisions, then who is utilizing the spiders brain and body movements? Are they being controlled from remote location? There must be some faint sense of self concept in the very core of a spider. I can’t prove if a spider makes choices or not, and neither could you, but aren't they animals like us, who have a brain like us? They walk around, eat things, digest foods, attack bad guys. Brains. Brains. Brains. Aren't their bodies inhibited and inhabited by a ‘Self’ concept? A self concept that sees outside of the spiders eyes, that hears through the spiders senses? There is a receptive end to these senses, and that’s where you will find, Mr. Spider, taking his own senses into acount, and acting upon them to the best of his knowledge. If you disagree with this, then you likely believe that a human brain has a receptive self, and only a human brain. You would likely come to this conclusion because you are a human - That’s first hand evidence that your brain has a receptive self, you. But what base do people who believe this have, to say that other animals do not think, just because we can’t possibly manifest ourselves as them? That would mean that animals do not essentially exist, while they are apparently moving around, mating, having children, seeking shelter, having two sexes in their species, climbing in shells, and biting with their mouths.

Yes, that would all be very surprising. That whole idea is a stumper, and would really seem to diminish some of my hocus pocus beliefs. But, babies wouldn't weave symmetrical webs in the first place because they don't have the body designed for it. The spider does however. It also has eight eyes, and uses them to calculate the "web design" process. You can't deny that this creature is actually using its brain. No. But, if evolution responds to animals who flourish to natural habitats by giving them super learning intelligence that differs from their distant ancestors slow learning, but "conceptual" intelligence, I don't see why either wouldn't have the ability to think at the very least, in reasoning form. I'll check these out.

The proof is in the pudding. Thinking in conceptual form - would you say that this can only be done in the form of words, spoken aloud in some form of human language? Or can conceptual thinking be formed in your mind, without language? If a bird makes a nest, wouldn't you say that the bird is actually forming in reality, his idea of nest building? Or does he need to be able to discuss his ideas to be considered conceptual? Maybe he does discuss his ideas with other birds, with his body language, and intricite chirps. And he learned these things using the same form of language. And so the question remains, must an animal speak a language that uses vocalized words, that require human lung capacity to be considered alive? They have two eyes, a heart, and a pair of breathing lungs, just like us. Since when did only humans have receptive ends to their eyeballs, while the other animals just connected to nothing?

This is really good advice. I’ve tried making small talk and it has worked very well a few times. I've already tried a lot of the things you mentioned, and have made some slight improvements. Things like walk past a group of people, or not shift to the side when someone is walking toward me. Even started sitting next to people in the front of the bus, instead of walking to the far back right hand corner. Last night I also made an impression on a waitress while eating with my friends. Of course, after I ordered, the atmosphere seemed to turn against me. My two friends who were laughing with me moments before, suddenly made a social bubble between the two of them and excluded me from the discussion. They began talking about teenage things, looking at photographs, and making negative observations about the people in the photos. I think this goes to show that I don't share their values as you mentioned. I was unable to butt in on their conversation, and even when I attempted to, it really seemed they didn't want me to. They gave me unnecessary looks, as if I appeared to be thinking thoughts about them, like I thought they were stupid or something. They often assume I'm thinking certain things by looking at my eyes, when in reality, I'm simply not thinking anything. They say things like, “Haha, Jon P is thinking that I’m…” or “Go on, say what you were ganna say...” I wasn’t ganna say anything, wasn’t even thinking. I really wasn't thinking anything but how uncomfortable I was, and how great it would be if they would stop excluding me from their conversation. Anyway, they went on and on about people and their flaws, people, who in fact, I find very interesting. I felt a little more at ease knowing that they didn't like being around these reasonably funny people, who I woudn't find anything wrong with. But nonetheless, they had me convinced that there was something wrong with me. I couldn’t penetrate their discussion, or so much as remain at ease. I couldn’t help but think it was me, is it me? When the waitress returned smiling, I didn’t have anything clever to say anymore. My friends infectious aura had gotten to me. The reminded me that I have anxieties, and they can control me if they want. I was not happy at all, and I just wanted to go home. I do have some, but I don't particularly get along with all of them, all of the time. I usually find refugee in the few people who share philosophical beliefs with me, and who can think outside the buns. I haven't talked with one of these types of people, in over three years. It's just negative people who i really have problem with. Thanks for the advice. I think I'll compile a list of my values so I can recall them, and throw them at people when they're making me feel vulnerable. Well, it would be good to recognize them anyway. I do know what my values are, when a situation calls for me to conjure them up. I think you just Understand things.

Nothing so far. Is there a large emphasis on objective morality in Ayn Rands philosophy? I think that much of capitalistic and economic success can be in the light of Objectivism. But, when there is something like human relationships, or dealing with peoples emotional states, I think there’s less room to take the Objectivists point of view in approaching something that is best left to subjectivity and natural human response. Do I even need to say these things, or am I way off topic? duly noted, though not quite sure yet. Maybe i'll do the respectful thing, and consider looking more into the philosophy before posting here.

No i haven't read it. And as far as a moral code, I think what is moral is always up for interpretation. Regardless of the strict belief of objectivists that Moral is not subjective, I believe there are cases where I would go out of this frame of thinking to establish what I consider to be just, I think Ayn Rand would do the same. Talking in absolutes can only get you so far, until you really have to question what you as a human actually believe.

I think the word amoral is a term given to someone who doesn't particularly comply to moral and immoral beliefs. Masturbation is not amoral itself, amoral is used to describe a person. As in, that man is amoral. This refers to his over all lack of believing in moral and immoral judgment. And, someone who is amoral easily spends time doing things that are immoral. But, they also may do things that are seemly harmless. There's no difference between hitler walking a dog, and the pope walking a dog. The act itself is harmless while the pope is a moral person, and Hitler is an amoral person. Amoral is what the person is, and the act he/she does either falls under moral or immoral, or neither of the two. A sensible statement would be: "This man is amoral and he will perform an immoral act." But even if we use amoral in the place of immoral, we still have a fallacy that doesn’t prove masturbation is “amoral”: “This man is Amoral, he masturbates, and therefore masturbation is an amoral act.” Masturbation can very well be a harmless act, regardless of whether a moral or amoral person is doing it. moral characteristic: giving your spaghetti sauce to a poor family. immoral characteristic: taking the poor families spaghetti sauce. I can understand you, psychology is a fairly new "science", some men who are still walking this earth are older than the field itself. The worst thing you can do is call anything based on pure observation, a fact, and I should have been more careful now that you point it out. Thanks. From now on I'll be a bit more cautious. I was merely expressing the idea in the form of "as a matter of fact," as in “additionally to what i've learned….” ... But, from first hand experience, I actually do agree with this particular observation. I have thoroughly thought this through, for what that’s worth, and have accepted this to be a truth. I certainly have my disagreements with lots of Freuds claims, but he wasn't All malarkey. While he was coming up with all the Wrong ideas, he did make some slightly less controversial but acceptable ones. But don't get me wrong, it could be a coincidence that I |instant gratification| on impulse, and just so happen to have anxities.

People have claimed masturbation to be immoral, primarily based on their religious beliefs, while some of us think it is harmless. But, to say that masturbation is in fact moral, is an inane reproach that can only be stated in logical fallacies. You wouldn't say "because this man is not a genius, he is stupid” so likewise, you wouldn’t say "because this act is not immoral, it is moral” . These are fallacies, and the only way of saying that masturbation is moral, is through these fallacies. In order for it to be moral, then by definition moral would have to state: 'self gratifying ways that do not affect the world around you'. Let’s say that you are enjoying yourself while rolling an unopened jar of spaghetti sauce across the floor. Is this a moral occurrence? No, it is a harmless activity. But what if you take the spaghetti sauce from a starving family who was cooking pasta and you were rolling it over a rug that you put your cat puffs under, couldn’t it be immoral? What about self gratifying yourself to a point where your basis for life is solely the feeling of ejaculation. You want that feeling so bad, you’ll grab a woman in a dark alley. Is the physical sensation achieved during masturbation what caused this event? Unless the definition of moral can be interpreted subjectively, I do not think that masturbation is moral. You could even go so far as to describe masturbation as the preamble to self gratifying ways, which in turn can lead to a series of unfortunate events. Who gets awe inspired by masturbating? At the very least, it is harmless. Some psychological facts from Freud and on have led us to an understanding that masturbating is a prime example of instant self gratification. Instant self gratification can lead to a series of unpleasant social situations, because you become a more anxious person from your lack of cerebral control (unable to shake desires, or postpone them to a more appropriate time). Ideally, to maintain social stamina, reflex and overall control, you need to be someone who suppresses these desires, and doesn't give in to the ID (Instant Self Gratifying). The more you give to the beast, the worse you become. Just my thoughts on masturbation.

That pretty much sums it up. This is probably the only way to make friends. I've tried it, and it does work. The problem is though, if I don't get rebuffed 50% of the time, there is still a 90% probability that I won’t be able to sustain the conversation. And mind you, the only time we factor in these odds, is when we initially have the 1% probability of me actually trying to talk to someone. I still have the problem of responding to what they're saying, staying on topic, and remaining interested while not becoming numb, and walking away with an uneasy sense self. Its just the flexible social dynamics that I really lack. Granted, there are times I have great conversations, but most of the times, I can’t utilize my social nature because of anxieties, emotions, insecurities, lack of trust, plus many other things I may and may not be aware of.

Awe inspiring heroes, who are fictional, but nonetheless who have admirable qualities. That’s a great idea, I remember feeling a little more high esteemed after reading a portion of a book that involved characters socializing in high society, or doing other things that I couldn’t normally do. I can admire these fictional characters, yes. But it's hard to integrate their superior qualities into myself longer than the one hour high I get, after reading. I think being who you are and being someone you want to be are two separate things, and there’s a Huge gap in between. Tthere are essential things I’m not realizing as you may have guessed, and maybe I’ll try to find a hero, as you mentioned, it sounds like it may work. Days, months... years? I hope this is one of those days problems, months at most. Years would really kill me. A rational strategy seems the best way to approach this, but that's something I've never been good at putting together for the long run. As it was, things always seemed to fall into place, until recently that they all feel apart. Now the opportunities that used to appear in front of me, aren't anywhere in site. I need to orient myself. What kind of rational strategies do you suggest? How would I put something like this together? become proactive in your own improvement. I've tried these types of things, only to be let down that they were actually degenerating egotistical improvements. This isn't the real me. Love this advice, but I'm still really stupid on the core concepts of self improvement. Some examples would be nice. Thank you so much. Including your advice, collectively, I have roughly 6 cents. SO you see, i need Dollars of knowledge in all these aspects of life. I'm real lost at times, otherwise I wouldn't be writing these posts. thank you again.

You're right, reading over my first post, I really didn't like what I wrote myself. I might have come off in a particular way, but I didn't mean to. Sorry, I must have been in a bad mood or something, I really don't even remember writing it that way. I SOUNDED LIKE AN IDIOT. But if you read these posts backwards to forwards, you might not get the wrong impression that was implied. Sorry softwareNerd.

Internet has helped me considerably too. Chat rooms, Forums, boards etc. I suppose you may be right. I did have somewhat of a social life growing up though. High school was hard to adapt to, but eventually I pushed myself to socialize. I started following people around until they saw me as "cool”. I reinforced old relationships, and made lots of friends. School seemed a bit easier. I finally stopped hanging around in hallways not talking to anyone, I had a social life, iand things were looking up. Unfortunately, good times lasted so long as I became the victim of a series of unfortunate events. I couldn't even begin to explain all of what happened without taking up too much space. Really, you would have to make a real commitment to read such a lengthy post. I actually started explaining it, just to delete it because it was getting so long. Long story short … dramatic events, friends become distant and shady, choosing girl over friends, friends leave me, girl leaves me. So in all case scenarios, you can probably see that a sense of abandonment has left me with an eager sense of anxious, plummeting unsureness of things, as I can't trust people, and overall lack of opening up skills.

Essentially, right-minded people according to my understanding of the expression, are those who are creative, less semantic type of thinkers. The number of left minded people out weight the number of right minded people. Neither is better than the other as far as I know, unless you think I have the ability to judge among these two brain hemispheres regions? On an objectivist forum, I would expect this to be a place even more inclined to outweigh "right minded people." In reality, I meant nothing by the statement, other than to start my post with a thrust of my own train of thought. I'm not going to explain what I meant by starting a statement with the words "I believe..." If you want to dig out the very nature of using these two words in the beginning of a statement, then you might want to find someone who doesn't mind discussing such an elementary topic. Frankly I don't care to elaborate on it, but I will if you must respond to this, insisting I do. That sounds like my type of thinkin'! Yeah, I really don't know, but i'm getting kicked off the computer, got to cut this post short. Sorry Hi back, this is actually an interesting way of seeing it. I see where your confusion is coming from, yes. Okay let me make a few things a little more clear. "people who believe more than what they read" was just my little synonymous expression of "those who are creative, less semantic type of thinkers." It's not to be taking literally and interpreted to all ends. And I see where you want clarification on the word "believe" it self. But it's interesting how you would be wondering if "people who believe more than they read" is "a bad thing"? It can be bad yes, if you are assuming that the things they believe beyond "written text" are dilapidation forms of information, and misguided irrational ideas that really have no base, and haven't been thought through. But to clarify, the "beliefs" I was referring to would be the insights and interpersonal knowledge you have gained through first hand experience, and this doesn’t require a right-hand brain. Left minded brains would just be more apt to tear the shit of these experiences with their factual knowledge.

I believe I elaborated on what I mean in the second half of the sentence. "....aimed toward more of the right-minded type people, who believe in more than what they read..." did you read more than the first couple lines, before you replied to the post?

It's probably my favorite movie to date. It's my "favorite" in the sense that I can watch it over and over and never bore from it. I think the movie was aimed toward more of the right-minded type people, who believe in more than what they read. You wouldn't find it in anyone’s movie collection that subscribed to this forum. Of course, I could be wrong, but likely am not. I know only one person that likes the movie as much as me, everyone else shows similar expressions to the film as you. The conclusion wasn't any different than the rest of the movie. The character that you're following around ends up floating upward into the sky into the unknown oblivion, if that helps to provide a full picture. You're right, no doubt some of the monologues were so bad, you just wanted to turn away. However, as I watched the movie more and more, I realize to accept these characters and not toss them out of the movies context just because they weren't captivating enough to hold my interest. Otherwise, I found most of the monologues really compelling. I don't know how far you got into it, but it does pull together in the second half of the movie, it becomes very interesting. Later on in the movie, the pretentious jumbled philosophical musings strewn throughout the story are a bit more interesting. The beginning really doesn't compare to the second half of the movie. I think it definitely explains you’re your critique from just seeing the first half. I think the film was very unique as it expressed the whole spectrum of modern day thinking. The more I watch it, the more imaginative I realize the film is. If you are referring to that one scene when the kid is sitting in on a lecture of existentialism in the beginning of the movie, I don't think I even paid attention to that scene. If I remember, the professor explains to the metrosexual looking kid, that one person’s existence does matter, and one person can shape the world, but in order for these things to be true, one must choose to do things. That’s some pretty down-right advice on the professors part, but I can see why you don’t particularly enjoy the scene in the classroom, as he’s just some typical “Professor Dingleberries” giving his optimistic take on the world. The more you watch the movie, the more you’ll understand these less than impressionable scenes. But meanwhile, there's dozens of more scenes through out the movie that get better. Just take the time to finish it.