JASKN

Permissions for the main user groups were turned off for some reason. Switched back on now.

I also think comfort with nudity is mostly cultural and doesn't have much to do with sexuality. I imagine a culture totally comfortable with nudity, and people sexually interested in each other will still treat each other differently. I don't know why we've arrived at this particular moment of cultural comfort with nudity, but I would bet it's from some prudish religious values, since I think nudity should be no big deal to civilized humans in some alternate universe. In this alternate universe, though, gay men would still be more sexually active than the general populace, as they are now, because one party would not be slowing the other down (sorry, ladies). I doubt it would be much different than it is now for gays, if nudity were accepted culturally. Men have X-ray vision, locker room or not.

But, what if we observe that many people have a similar response to a certain song or painting? There's an objective observation. But, what kinds of people are they? More objectivity. Even with yourself, there are certain objective conclusions you can draw about your own emotional reactions. Other conclusions are not so clear. Music is so emotional, and it might be useful to say that your reaction is "subjective." But, we know that all of reality is objective, so what you're really terming "subjective" is simply the unknown reasons behind the emotional responses of your mind.

Given the complexity of the human mind, the meet-between of theory and concrete with regard to music will be hard to generalize across many people. A personal example: Radiohead. I developed an interest during a period where my internal outlook was grim, and legitimately "loved" listening, in the "twisted" way that I could love anything at the time. As my life outlook changed, the association to that grim period and the grim music style kept me from listening, but over time I enjoyed them again for the "good" reasons: the music is interesting and complex and has all the elements of music that I enjoy otherwise, except that it is malevolent (although, over time their age has softened that). Furthermore, now I like the mental throwback to that former period in my life! So, they are still one of my favorite bands -- my chosen philosophy is Objectivism, but I love a "malevolent" band.

In one sense it was awesome, because he didn't back down to that idiot O'Reilly, who likes to bully his guests. On the other hand, Peikoff is horrible on TV! To the average viewer, it's hard to say whether he left a good impression or not. (But, maybe the average O'Reilly viewer doesn't matter because they can't be swayed anyway.)

I provided a formulation and described why I thought it was appropriate, whomever winds up using it notwithstanding. Perhaps it has no meaning beyond those who use it, whereupon the formulation is only mine. I actually like using the word to differentiate rationalist Objectivists from inductive Objectivists. But you're probably right, it's only used by ignoramuses toward Objectivism as such, so I'd be happier to reclaim the term to mean inductive Objectivists. Or, we could write it off completely, like all of Salon.com.

College is a microcosm that forces you to be around people and things you may not choose yourself at a later point in life. So, that could be annoying. But, it's just another set of circumstances that you need to navigate as best as you can. Trying to find people you like, do things you like, and avoiding the bad stuff as much as you can -- college isn't much different than the rest of life in that regard. As for "seeing the light" with Atlas Shrugged, what if you'd grown up in some much more restrictive area of the world, and learned what you have all the same from Atlas Shrugged? Would the principles still apply? What about the characters in the book itself? They witnessed worse happenings than we have thus far. Did the message work for them? It can be difficult learning about the irrationality in the world -- at first. Eventually, though, you begin to see that there is a good life to be made in all sorts of circumstances, and then your bad feelings begin to change for the better, reflecting your new evaluations.

Welcome to the forum. I loved House and was sorry to see it go. It was witty, interesting, smart, and the characters seemed like they could have existed, in their own weird world. I thought the ending was plausible, for a moment in the show's time. House chose his friend, in his characteristic over-the-top way. Maybe his friend will have died before House had the chance to sabotage his own choice again, regarding his personal relationships.

I think of "Randroids" as Reidy's formulation: rationalistic "proponents" of Objectivism. Taken in this way, the term is perfect -- it walks and talks like Objectivism, but in fact it doesn't understand Objectivism at all.

Refusing to engage does not imply evading.

You seem to know the people you hate very well, to be so sure of their true motivations.

You've got an ax to grind and show up only to spew criticism in vile ways. Who would want to take "method" advice from you?

Why don't you try saying something actually sexist, and see how she likes that. Additionally, start all of your questions with, "Man, I really wish...", "Man, that's a great point, Teacher." Or you could go the other way, and say, "Human, can I go to the bathroom?" Or, if you're looking to get through college as unscathed as possible while achieving the primary goal -- a degree -- keep your head down and try to use the time doing something you won't be able to do once you begin a working man's life: reading a lot, going for walks in weird places at weird hours, starting a business, whatever. Sit and think for a second: what did you gain by arguing? If you continue like that throughout the semester, what realistic outcomes could you hope to achieve? My prediction: arguing by proxy through the administration, tension in class, worse grades, and worst of all, attention devoted to a fruitless endeavor. If you want to make a point and change minds, there are probably better outlets than raising your hand in a college class and arguing at length in front of everyone.

Decent Objectivists (some of whom you follow around on the internet) don't care about what you write because you do it in a rude way. Jerks (of those whom you criticize, if any) don't care what you think for obvious reasons. Newbie-Objectivists (the bulk of this forum's traffic) will brush you off for sounding loony. Echoing Eiuol, at some point criticism has to end and new action has to take its place.

If this is the content that is approved, imagine the goldmine that's being "censored"...

I sent a test email to myself and to you via Administrator controls, and I did receive the email. Let me know if you didn't receive yours!

The emails have been working for me this week. But, in the past I have had my spam filters randomly block OO.com. Have you checked your junk email folder?

Too pessimistic. What about that small group of people hacking the cars in defiance of the government? Who are "the government"? Logically, this march is only temporary.

We're BFF's on Facebook, so I let her know.

I have corresponded with Leonard Piekoff on several occasions regarding his podcast specifically, as for a time we were keeping an updated transcript of his questions in one of the forum's threads. Usually, it would take a month or two to receive a reply. I believe he has an assistant who helps manage his emails. Prior to that, like you I had emailed a question to which I did not receive a reply, and which was not answered on his podcast. Recently, he has announced that he will be making even fewer podcasts than his current every other week. So, your chances of receiving an answer may now be slim, unless perhaps it is a topic of special interest to him. Of course, one of our longtime forum members takes questions, too!

I'm not sure how you might have been using RSS since I didn't use it myself, but there is still an RSS link at the top of the "Unread Content" (ie. your default content stream) page. I couldn't locate another RSS button elsewhere.

I'm not sure how you might have been using RSS since I didn't use it myself, but there is still an RSS link at the top of the "Unread Content" (ie. your default content stream) page. I couldn't locate another RSS button elsewhere.

I updated the "Unread Content" stream settings to include by default topics which have already been read, displayed in non-bold text (though this can be changed in the "Edit this stream" settings), since I think that had been the default before... though maybe that had just been my default. But, new streams can be saved per user and made as his/her default stream by checking the box next to the stream title at the top. After a new default is set, it will show up as the stream button on the top right of the forum, with all of each user's saved/custom stream settings.

Looks like the upgrade was a success, but reset some settings back to default. Also, it appears that the "New Content" section is gone for good. I'll poke around and try to get things back to normal. Performance may be slow for today while the system automatically performs some background tasks associated with the upgrade. Edit: It does not look like the upgrade fixed the problem with major lag when posting.

The forum will be down for a bit while the most recent upgrades are installed.