JASKN

I'll add that I was also surprised by Snape, since my evaluation of him was the same. I also thought it would be too obvious for Rowling to make him a villain, not to mention that Dumbledore insisted that he was trustworthy. I really want to know what gave him that indication. My order of favorites: Goblet of Fire, Half-Blood Prince, Order of the Phoenix, Prisoner of Azkaban, Chamber of Secrets, Sorcerer's Stone. I have only read each book once, and I thought book 5 had elements which should have been edited out, such as Hagrid's (half?) brother. I am looking forward to this 7th book to be the best. In fact, I can't wait for it! Moose, I also first read the books straight through, until book 5, which had just been released at the time. When I finished the last sentence, I kind of felt at a loss, as though I didn't know what to do with myself without this world. I was pretty enveloped in the series. Did you have a similar experience?

Now, do you use 3d graphic design tools as well? If not, do you think there is still a market for 2d technical illustrations, given that it is easier and easier to produce good 3d work?

Well, my idea of "the most pleasure" is long-term happiness. Is there any greater pleasure? Isn't that the reason every rational person is living? I don't live to be rational, I live to be happy, and rationality is the best means to that end.

I guess I glazed over this, but actually, minus the "instead of physical pleasures obtained," it works for me. Maybe this isn't relavent to the thread, but what is the difference between "physical pleasures" and, well, "physical pleasures"? Meaning, if I rationally decide to pursue something for the sake of it's effect on my body, what is wrong with that? Isn't physical pleasure all the same, and the difference comes when I choose a certain one over another, rationally? As long as I never divorce my mind from the equation, there is no conflict.

Yes that she incorrectly applied her correct Objectivist principles in ethics. But not everything she said was part of her philosophy; in this case, her ideas about sex.

Actually, yes, I did not think of this, although Maarten has already mentioned it. Now your claim of a right to not view sexual material has been officially refuted on all grounds, Capitalism Forever. By personal integrity above I was referring to any of a man's choices on how to conduct his life. And for the record, I was not advocating that a man has a right to my life simply because I am on his property. Although, and I am not learned enough on property rights to provide a good qualifier here, I would think that if I refused to remove myself from someone else's property, he does have a right to initiate force against me, at least enough to get me off of his property.

Inspector, you are wrong on this matter, and in no way is Objectivist ethics incompatible with rationally choosing which pleasure(s) and happiness one wishes to pursue, which is not hedonism, and which also includes the pursuit of sexual pleasure. In your earlier quotes, Rand proclaims that sex must be a celebration of values, that otherwise one is only "wriggling" while separating concepts from percepts. Bull. There is ample evidence to suggest that people may rationally pursue different kinds of sex, which may include the long-term sexual goal in the context of a romantic relationship, or not. Since there is no scientific evidence on the subject, one can only go by what one observes, and I think GreedyCapitalist's quote about Christians fits perfectly. You are just not providing evidence as to why the approach to sexuality should be different from any other value in life. Lathanar, pleasure and happiness is both the goal and the consequence. Meaning, I live for pleasure and happiness, the goal, but I achieve it via rational value judgements, making it also the consequence. GreedyCapitalist specified that one must employ reason/rationality to achieve pleasure and happiness.

I don't think Febod was demeaning with his "Yeah dude" statement. I read it as empathetic. Also, someone else used literature to get a point across, which may have even prompted Febod to go a similar route with his song reference. I see no problem with that. However, I agree that a person's age is not important with regard to falling in love. What evidence would suggest otherwise, Febod? Also, I agree that people can change, sometimes drastically, upon entering a romantic relationship. However, it sounds like RationalEgoistSG has had enough time to judge if that has happened or is going to happen. I've noticed that it happens early on in a relationship (outside of a traumatic event). Concerning your ability to judge whether your love is based on the right reasons or not, RationalEgoistSG, I think the only way that can be determined is by judging the rest of your life and values honestly for yourself. Since you have done that, I think you are on the right track. About qualifying love, I think that is a scientific matter, outside of judging it for yourself based on personal experience and the personal experience of other people, which is a long way from being answered. Ask around, as you are on this site, for some different perspectives on other individuals' experience with love, and love over extended periods of time. In my opinion, as of yet that is the best way to gain answers about the qualities of love as an emotion. In my experience, Ayn Rand's notion that love is an incredibly strong emotional response to the recognition of another person's values that are similar to (or "a reflection of") your own is correct. Even if those values are corrupt or mistaken.

Actually, the display of a crucifix in an individual's home could mean any number of things, which do not necessarily have to include the man being a Christian. He could display a crucifix as a symbol of his prior life as a Christian, in order to remind him as often as possible how much better his life is now that he is not. You could not know for sure without some inquiry. To you initially, however, the crucifix more often than not might imply that the owner of the house uses faith to some degree as a guiding force in his life. This is a result of your broader experiences with other people, but is obviously not true universally. But that is not the point. Either way, the crucifix could offend you, and your personal integrity could be breached, by your choice, but if you still have the option to leave the man's house, no rights were violated. It is your fault if you cannot handle the sight of a crucifix, not the fault of the non-Christian (or Christian) man, while you are on his property. This same principle applies to viewing material you personally might judge as being too sexually backwards for you to preserve your "sexual integrity." Since no one but you can make you think about anything, unless someone is using actual physical force to cause you to remain somewhere or do something against your will, no rights can be violated.

The receptionist said, "I don't know, the doctor put that up there." "He didn't tell anyone what it meant?" "No, he just tells us what to put up." If anyone else wants to try for the doctor: (727) 446-2167. I do not know what the reference is, myself.

If you would look a little closer, you might notice that he does not paint meaningless smears of color, including the examples you gave.

I have had Syd Mead recommended to me before, but as yet I have a hard time getting past the dated look, which I personally do not like. I may check him out again later down the line. Do you have any of your own work available online?

My favorite aspect of Mullins' work is his play on the viewer's imagination. Many pieces look like a mess at a first glance, but after a few days as your desktop background you pick out the details that were there all along. A lot of the time he accomplishes these details with a single stroke, but I'd never seen it there before. It's almost like I'm continually discovering his work. Add that to, as you note, his incredible sense of light, color, and I'll add form, not to mention some of the stories he tags, and he is by far my favorite artist. So do you think his style was developed first and directors were attracted to it, or the other way around? His personal work is painted in the same way, and in the interviews I've read, he never mentioned that he paints in a way predominantly to cater to concept work, like you describe. It could make sense, but I've never read it.

I can only take so much Manson, but a few of his songs are good. I have not listened to Tom Waits. But who is "first"?

Ok, well I am not going to go the same route as the rest of the thread and run around in circles with you. And you still did not answer my/the question concerning sexuality. As far as people misrepresenting your position, reading through the thread, my conclusion was that you were vague or were not explaining your position very well, and at times you appeared to avoid certain questions altogether. Like the one about sexuality in my post, for instance. At any rate, I don't think much more is to be gained from you in this thread. You have explained yourself apparently as best you can, or as thoroughly as you care to, but it still makes no sense, to me.

Thanks BryanG, I didn't think about the art in the context of a book cover. I will thus have to retract my statement about poor composition, JMeganSnow, because when I crop the images for wrap-around and text, I do not have problems with the composition. In fact, some of it is quite good. I wanted to compose a post about my favorite artist, Craig Mullins, but I realize now that this isn't the appropriate thread for it. Since I do not know much about the fantasy art genre and what the actual readers are looking for, which I would assume is what the artists are aiming for as BryanG pointed out, I do not think I am in a good position to provide judgement about the style, within its confines. I will say, however, that I do not like fantasy art if these artists are good examples of the genre. To give an example why, take the following comparison: Keith Parkinson, Michael Whelan, and Craig Mullins. If anyone thinks the first two could have created the last, I will have to say, "Highly doubtful." But check out Mullin's site. His work is insanely good.

It just took me two days to read through this thread because I couldn't keep at it for more than five minutes at a time; I found it a very tedious way to go about arguing the subjects of sexuality, property rights, and widespread public convention. CapitalismForever, I found you to be very rude to some of the people countering you with legitimate arguments against your position and/or what appeared to be your position. I say this because I think it is deserved, but also because the problem I have with your rudeness is the very same problem you have with the unexpected display of sexuality. Etiquette is entirely a social construct which has nothing at all to do with rights, and the unexpected viewing of what you personally believe to be a display of sexuality can not amount to more than a rude gesture when physical force is not involved. Your other argument is that the open display of sexuality is somehow inherently harmful to humans. I challenge you to provide any sort of substantiative evidence supporting that claim. You have not provided any thus far. Also, since mrocktor put it out there, I would like to state that I am of the same opinion.

I also wasn't a fan of those artists. Neither had much connection to reality (not meaning the subject matter but the actual representation), and I thought they had a very poor idea of good composition. I liked Parkinson less than Whelan because everything seemed to be frozen. For instance, in The Marketplace, the people look like they must have been moving because of their poses, but that's just it: they look like they're posing. Even in The War, several paintings down, the smoke from the guns looks as though it is a solid object, like plastic, frozen in the air.

I laughed out loud at this. Very funny.

I think she looks better on the current W cover. In fact, she looks amazing.

Well, he did pull the barb from his chest, after it had pierced his heart, before he died.

By far the best site to turn to regarding information about American universities is the SAT's collegeboard.com. They have extensive searching features on every accredited university and college in at least North America. And it's free. Try there.

I guess I'll bite... what are you talking about?

It would be ridiculous to write professionally and not consider the people who are actually going to make it professional and not just a hobby. The very nature of writing demands that an audience be present, anyway. Would you prefer people who do what they enjoy while expecting no payment, because they should only do it for themselves, but reserve actual paid work for things they do not consider enjoyable, because then they wouldn't have to consider someone else's opinion? You are also not necessarily placing your self esteem in the hands of other people by considering whether or not they will pay for your product.

This is not their motivation. As far as I can tell, the adults who teach kids this kind of bullshit are concerned primarly with: avoiding the truth in the back of their minds, clinging to longstanding, blind beliefs, and impressing other people with their "morality." I grew up in a less potent but similar environment as the one presented in that trailer. The adults at my church, which I attended at least twice and more often than not three or four times a week, laid it on thick, and for me it was very effective. They had the fun songs, they utilized guilt tactics, then they acted like it was cool to worship God. I was secluded from the outside world, and I believed all of it. Borderline cult. Now as an adult, I can't understand how the adults from my childhood "bought" it. A while ago I stopped considering them completely, and even still, if the evangelical sect is growing, I will continue to ignore them because I do not think they are going to take over America. softwareNerd is probably right in that a lot of those included in the far right cannot be accurately described as "loony" Christians. I consider those people on the fence, and if or when it really came down to it they would side with reality. I hope. However, I know it took me several years of focused thinking to get out of the religious mindset, and one, I don't see people actively trying to do the same thing, and two, if everyone began tomorrow, a lot of the world would probably collapse out of despair, if it would be anything for them what it felt like for me.