LucentBrave

Yup, that's an A-10. I had that picture taken over 7 years ago, when I was still going through my technical training school.

I'm from Westland, MI. I used to work at the Detroit Yacht Club before I joined the service.

He could have just been acting smart or clever to push the school system. He did mention that the teacher told them to write an essay on whatver came to mind. He mentioned that he was just following the teacher's instructions, but surely he knew what would happen in the wake of the Virginia Tech attacks. I, too believe that he should be evaluated.

I thought that the movie was pretty disgusting, myself. However, it did portray consequenses of the values that tyler's minions were trained to covet.

Pardon me for being a little lazy, but I didn't go through all of the posts. Didn't Ms. Rand mention something in one of her works towards the effect of a government lottery. I believe that I read that that contribution would be the most beneficial towards the government. As far as our government goes. I could be stating the same that has been stated, but, Objectivism does not call for liberalism, or anarchy. Capitalism has rights and laws that need to be protected in order to succeed. Yes we would have the most freedom, but those freedoms would have to be protected, and the protection would have to be funded by some way, shape, or form. I also believe that the way those aspects of the government would be funded would be up to the people, however it would never be in a way forceful such as taxes. Now as far as how they would be funded: that is the question at hand.

No thanks necessary. I should be thanking you. You're paying me for my service. In realizing that, I try to do the best possible job that I can do. Far too many people sit on their butts over here, while you are forcefully required by law to pay our salary. I'm actuall in charge of a handful of airman, who pretty much agree with my views. I volunteer for asignments in Iraq or Afganistan which I feel will help our nation out the most (to my wife's dismay).

I believe also that Ayn Rand herself stated in one of her works that who you value in a relationship should have equal values in turn. Such as a thief will not see value in becoming close to a police officer. However, there is one thing that you have to realize as well. You can be independent and have a relationship with someone. What's more is if you get into a relationship with a person who is independent as well. I got married to one of the most independent women that I've ever met. This also holds true to friendships. This pretty much holds true for close personal relationships (such as marriage) to friendship. Now the other question that usually arises is: Is it necessary? The answer is no. it's not a requirement. However, never think that it is a bad thing if you find someone you love, or enjoy the companionship that shares your views and values. While you don't absolutely have to have it. It doesn't mean that you can't have it or that it's a bad thing. Sorry for the short, or even moreso vague post. I've been awhile (over a year since I've posted here). I hope this helps.

Hello Everyone, I sent one of these out a year ago-- two years after I joined this forum. I haven't had a chance to post in the past year. I've been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of the last 12 months. This site forum has drastically changed from when I first joined. It would appear that most have more freedom on the board to post their own blogs. Anyhow, I look forward once again to posting on this site. It was fun when I was here before, and I'm sure, that it will be fun once again. About me: I've been in the Air Force for nearly 8 years. I'm currently stationed at Yokota AB, Japan with my beautiful wife Bobbilyn. We expect to have a son on the way in late June. I've been a reader, and supporter of Ayn Rand and Objectivism for over the course of the last ten years. I look forward to getting to know you all- along with your thoughts, opinions, and questions.

25

Hello Everyone, I thought that it would be a good idea to re-introduce myself to the forum, as I haven't visited the site in over a year. I am in the military (still) and plan to remain in the military for a full twenty year obligation. I am currently residing in Korea (once again), and am going to Japan (once again), after my tour here is finished. A lot has happened since I last visited the forum. A six month deployment to hostile Afghanistan, took me away from the net. I proposed to my future wife 2 months ago. Things are-and have been going-extremely well for me. Enough of my rambling. It's good to see some familiar faces once again. And I look forward to discussing Objectivism with each and every one of you once again.

I've been curious about something for some time now. I noticed that Wal-Mart is starting to get pretty big over in China. I've also done some research on where Wal-Mart acquires it's product from. I know the internet isn't always the most reliable source, but after searching numerous pages,( I just googled it) it seems that 95% of all products sold at Wal-Mart are made in China. If this is true, and China is getting fat off what we sell over here. Isn't that expanding their communist nation, and allowing for more expansion for certain areas, such as their military? I mean even selling 10% of Chinese merchandise would better their endeavors, wouldn't it? Thoughts? I hope I'm flawed in this and just jumping the gun.

I guess from Betsy's definition, I'm not repressed then. I know what I want in life, and I pretty much have a favorite everything. I know that I'm a happy person. I just don't show it as much as others. I also haven't felt out of touch with my values.

Thank you for bringing that up Bowser. I spent a long time looking at that last line, and I knew something didn't seem right with it. Thanks again.

A chimp being able to utilize sign language does not make it volitional. It is a learned habbit. Animals can think and form extremely simple concepts. They do not have a choice in this matter. You are confusing the concept of volition with the concept of learning a skill. Animals can learn and be trained and conditioned to do many things. You ask what is going on when a chimp is communicating in sign language? How does a fully trained dog respond to it's owner when the owner tells is to "sit?" It sits, because it was taught to do so. A chimp will respond with an appropriate sign because it was taught that way. What would happen if a chimp was offered a new sign to learn? One that it has never seen before? I can look at some signs and pretty much figure out what they are just by to motion of the sign. I can also pretty much be told what the sign means once, and remember what it means for a long time. Do you think a chimp can? No, you have to repeat the meaning of the sign over and over until it is learned. If you could somehow prove that primitive animals have the faculty of volition, then I suppose Objectivism would have to validate the proof to see if it holds water. And if it does, I suppose it would have to embrace it as a valid concept.

When I said that 'I desire to emulate no one.' I meant that in the sense that I don't want to be exactly like someone in the psychological sense. To admire someone for having values and achieving them to the fullest; I see no problem in emulating that. Take Howard Roark for example. I have no desire to pursue architecture. I know nothing of architecture, historically nor presently. What I like about Howard Roark is how he achieves his goals. If someone has a certain take on a certain concept or subject, I'll accept that answer only if it is logically sound and is proven. I don't just shake my head and agree with them solely out of admiration for the person. Nor do I blindly follow them or their every pattern of action. What they are saying or doing must make sense to me. To emulate someone else's desire of favorites or choice of values regardless of what the emulator feels and solely because the "emulatee" values those things is wrong. I've achieved my goals and continue to pursue grander ones by paying attention to the people I admire, and how they acheive those goals. Not by sharing favorites that I quietly disagree with or laughing because they laugh, or being quiet because they are quiet. I realize that their success comes not fromt how hard they laugh at any given thing, but how they simply achieve their goals.

I stand corrected on labeling Howard Roark as an Objectivist, and I see your point. I suppose I did suggest that in some way that I do emulate Howard Roark. That, of course, was not my intention. I desire to emulate no one. I was like this as long as I can remember. When I laugh, it's at things that I have respect for. When I'm stuck on troubleshooting an electrical problem at work, I take a break, sit back, and smile or laugh in contemptible admiration. It's when I solve the problem that I've been working on that I truly let loose and smile and laugh- if only for a mere moment. I smile when I'm in the company of friends and people I usually spend time with. What I don't understand is why people smile at people for no reason that I can conceive. For example: a simple passing among strangers. People laugh at things that I don't think is funny. At the same time, I am told that I have no sense of humor for not laughing. These are the things that I'm referring to. When I smile and laugh, it's genuine. I don't believe that I need to smile or laugh all the time to express my happiness. That is just the way that I am. I do know that I am happy though.

Thank you, Burgess. I think I have a more broad understanding of the subject at hand. I'm not sure as to which scene you're referring to. I do know that he did have a commission for the Manhattan Bank Company. I remember that he met the board to sign the contract, but there was a small alteration that they wanted to make; I believe that it was the facade at the front of the building. He put his hand on the table and would not remove it. ( his knuckles were white with the strain). I am like that as well. I guess I do suppress my emotions quite a bit. The pain doesn't last long though. Much like Howard, "it only goes so deep." I was more concerned with expressing happiness all the time. I rarely do, but when I do, you can tell that it is genuine. I never fake reality.

Iron Works, BurgessLau is correct in informing you that you need to understand more about concept forming. A good resource for this is "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." It also gives a few good examples and proof as to why animals are not volitional beings. As for animals being volitional entities in a different context- that just doesn't make any sense. Volition is volition. Either you have the freedom to choose, or you don't. Alternate contexts on the subject don't seem to fit. The thought of a dog going on a hunger strike because it's owner won't feed it Kibbles N' Bits instead of Alpo's puppy chow does seem hilarious, though. Edited for Spelling and slight paragraph restructuring.

While perusing some of the more recent threads, I stumbled across, http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=1052&hl=hero. What intrigued me was Betsy's description of Repressed Objectivists. Since I really respect Betsy's advice and knowledge of Objectivism, her comments in the thread really got me thinking. I myself rarely smile or laugh in public. I am very quiet, unless something truthful needs to be heard or known at a specific moment. When I deal with most people on a social level (people I work with or people I've never met before) I suppose I don't appear to be the nicest person out there. I'm not downright mean or disrespectful, but I've been told I project a strange "negative" aura. Now, I'm a person who values things very dearly. I'm also very passionate about what I value. I'm not afraid of people taking away what I value, because I'm well aware that any attempt to do so would be futile. The thing that gets me is that I'm I seem to be inherently emotionless for the most part. Things rarely get to me, as I'm a very patient person. The only feeling that I have is a deep happiness that, according to most, I don't seem to project. I do, however, have very few, yet very close friends. When I'm in their company, I seem to "blossom," in the essence that I laugh and smile the most. It just seems that I express my happiness only in front of the people that I trust the most. It's not something that I consciously switch on and off; it just happens. I know that I'm not Howard Roark, but I was reading "The Fountainhead" last night (for the umptieth time) when I came upon one of the earlier conversations with Peter Keating and Ellsworth Toohey; right after Roark was commisioned to build the Enright House. It was the questions that Toohey asked that caught my attention- along with the answers that Peter Keating provided. Specifically the first two: "Does he laugh often?" "Very Rarely." "Does he seem unhappy?" "Never." I stopped reading and I thought I almost fit that to a tee. My question is: Am I a repressed student of Objectivism, and if so, was Howard Roark an repressed Objectivist?"

I'm planning on getting out of the military when my current term of enlistment is up (2 years). All that I keep hearing from my family and friends is "Don't do it. You'll never find work anywhere out there." I keep sending my parents articles and proof of the different industries out there who are in desperate need of help. They just seem to ignore it and accept what the government is telling them about the unemployment rate. I'm getting out because I'm ready to move on and make the next step in my life. The military has been great to me, but I'm ready to get out and do more. If I have to scrape up some survival money in the mean time doing jobs that bums on the street are too lazy to do, then so be it. I will get to where I want to be in life one way or another.

I'm glad to see some people here who enjoy watching anime. Many series and movies of the genre promote much more serious and real situations than that of their American counterparts. Some of my favorite anime series are: -Kino's Journey (a very philosophical series) -Yojimbo (based upon Akira Kurosawa's movie) -Samurai X/ Rurouni Kenshin OAV (A beautiful work of animation) -Spiral (The main hero of the story utilizes logic as his weapon of choice in capturing criminals) -Saber Marionette J (I love the character development) Some of my favorite movies are: Cold Mountain Rain Man Forrest Gump Men of Honor Finding Forrester The Count of Monte Cristo Good Will Hunting The Shawshank Redemption I'm sure that I have many more favorites, but these stand out most in my mind at the moment.

Good news for Terry Goodkind fans: Book 9 of the Sword of Truth series, entitled "Chainfire," was released on January 4th. I recently ordered it, and I'm anxiously anticipating it's arrival. P.S. It's good to see everyone again. The military life has kept me quite busy these past few months.

Systematic is a heck of a lot better than haphazard. I recently read an article about a dog that was found on the bank of a river with a plastic bag over it's head that was secured by a roped by a rope around it's neck. That sickened me. I know it's a tad off-topic, but I'm doing it to prove a point. Animal cruelty is that- damage to animals without purpose. Systematic slaughter of animals does serve a purpose. It feeds people who enjoy the taste of meat. It baffles me to think that anyone would think that any mode of survival such as meat (food) as being immoral. That being said, I think that the animals would prefer to be put out of their misery before they are tossed into a pot.

Also, there is the downside to free will. A person can exercise his will in an attempt to refuse to think or choose at all. Animals have a keen sense of danger and tend to avoid it at all costs. There are people out there who are known as "thrill seekers" and actually go out of there way to pursue danger. An animal will usually fend for itself, or run away. Who knows, maybe Adam and Eve were "thrill seekers" themselves. In the case of animals, they are usually taught and conditioned through the use of food. They seem to only know that they have done something right if they are rewarded by another. A human knows that he has done something right by use of his judgement. A rational man knows if he is right or wrong. He doesn't need someone to scratch him/ her benind the ears to know that they made the right choice or have succeeded at a task. He also doesn't need a hand out or a bribe for that matter. You could take it further, and train an animal do something wrong and reward it for it's actions- with food or whatever- and it still thinks that it has done the right thing. It will not accept guilt at all- earned nor un-earned.

I own every Final Fantasy game except for three and have enjoyed and beaten all of them. Does that make me immoral? Have you ever watched "The Matrix and enjoyed it for some cool special effect or some other aspect of the movie?" If so, I guess you're immoral. Have you ever read a fantasy novel, and enjoyed it for entertainment value? I guess you're immoral. Roark, you should really think about your post some more. Each and every person values each and every form of entertainment in a different way- provided that they enjoy video games, movies, or whatever from of entertainment of a certain type. It's like you're stating, if you enjoy spinach and I don't, that automatically makes it immoral to you. It's when you start believing in these forms of entertainment as being real- like the possibility of the matrix existing, or the world of Final Fantasy existing- that is when it becomes immoral. I can still play these games, watch these movies, and read these books soley for entertainment value and still accept in the principles of objectivism. You know why? Because these forms of entertainment were created by man for the purpose of enjoyment and entertainment. You may not like the Final Fantasy series because it is not real. That is fine. However, just because you don't like something for whatever reason that you do not like it for, it does not mean that it isn't moral.