JASKN

Ayn Rand was not an attractive woman. In fact, she was almost unattractive. Take her mind out of the equation and she does not fulfill any ideal of human beauty. I have never seen her in video, but I would guess that her facial expressions, despite her features, were extremely pleasureable to observe. I think facial expressions are a good indicator of how a person's mind operates.

I play: Halo 2 on XBOX Live nick: HAPPYFUNSTAR I will kick your ass.

Are you the singer? The songs aren't bad, if I were in the city I'd come listen. Do you have more than those three songs?

Can't you have both? "My purpose is to [insert huge generality], but I also want to do/be [wife, homeowner, whatever] as well"? Wouldn't a good purpose make the lesser/more specific goals easier to achieve? Ayn Rand was asked "What is your purpose in life?" at the end of the book Ayn Rand Answers. Her answer: "My purpose is to enjoy my life in a rational way: to use my mind to the greatest extent possible; to pursue, admire, and support human greatness; to make all my choices rationally; to expand my knowledge constantly. That's a pretty ambitious program, and I've achieved most of it." This is very close to what I have formulated for myself, and I think she's got it right in going to the greatest generalities.

Exactly.

Pretty dumb idea for a 74-year-old.

What do people here think about the resolution of Enron vs. the government? And was the government justified in its involvement? Should there have been an "Enron Task Force"?

What gender I am attracted to is definitely not my most important attribute, but it's still important. When I'm starting a sexual relationship, it doesn't help me to say "it's not important which gender I'm attracted to," when it is very important to the person I start the relationship with, not to mention that it's very important to me. In the end, I will be having sex with someone or I won't, and I have to have my reasons why. So there must be words to effectively communicate "with a man" or "with a woman." Or at least some sort of gesture or dance, which I would almost prefer.

But DavidOdden, I'm talking about serious government reform. You think that is possible by pointing out to my friends what the government is really for (which I do)? I'm thinking, "Not going to happen in my lifetime," which is what I really care about. I think that I can buy a good government. Money is power, and when I get enough of it I think I'll have enough influence to either buy out the government or buy enough media outlets for a long enough time, or even buy the right universities or private education for other people, to get the message across to everyone and create the best possible atmosphere for rational minds to exist, and a government to match. This is a big deal to me. I don't think I'll be able to buy a whole country comparable to the USA in my lifetime, so I'm probably going to have to work with this country. Can you think of other ways to fix the government?

Great research. I can't believe how ridiculous the law is. I try not to get depressed when I learn about this kind of shit from the government. But while I have a deep desire to right it all, I have no desire to go into politics or law. What do you do when confronted with this, besides make clear your disgust for it?

I don't watch a lot of television, so I'm not that interested in the subject and haven't done a lot of research on it. But isn't the trend moving away from "public" broadcasting anyway? Ipods offer some shows at pay-per-view, and isn't cable booming and set to outdo the major networks? How long can this free-tv thing last with Tivo and Digital Cable? I think censoring the television will kind of work itself out. When our government begins censoring the internet, blogs, and podcasts is when I will start worrying.

I agree, Elle. However, to me it seems NewYorkRoark thinks that we live in a time where most people are not the customers you speak of. Or, most people are not on the same level as he is, so in order to be successful he must compromise himself. I have given this some thought. My conclusion is that no matter what, under no circumstances do I want to live my life compromising my ideals for anyone else. If this means that I have to move to some part of the world's wilderness uninhabited and toil the earth all by myself, so be it. And I'm totally serious. However, I do not believe that there is literally no one that I value out there. I think that there are enough people who exist with whom I can work in order to achieve a great level of success. So yes, I have dealt with what you're talking about (I think anyone who has ever held a crappy job knows what you're talking about). My initial strategy was to ignore people. At my most recent job, I found it easier just to act like I cared and "sell out." I hate doing that, and my long term plan is to say "screw it" and go out on my own, and I'm really looking forward to it.

I haven't given parenting a lot of thought, but with a goal like that and with what you said, it sounds like you're doing good things with your kids. (Not to mention that you like having kids, which I think is absolutely essential. To me it seems as if most people would rather not have their children). I even remember specifically being pissed off like in your example about being required to share with siblings and guests but not getting the same treatment at relatives' and friends' houses. I agree with you that it is more important to teach kids about ownership than about giving gifts. I would also be interested to know how you deal with your oldest son, at that miserable age of 15. I am the oldest of four boys, and 15-16 (14-17 for me) were what you could call Asshole Years for all of us. Me being the first, my parents had no idea how to deal, and they basically spent two years flipping out. They were more subdued with each subsequent boy, but I think they just ignored the behavior.

I think your money-earning chores idea is excellent, but doesn't it kind of contradict your first idea, where it is better if they do not own toys, in order to avoid arguing over them? I would think that if you just implement the same chore principles in they way you present gifts, sharing and breaking things, there would be no problem. (Although it is probably easy for me to say "no problem" when I have no kids). Also, I know this is touchy and I have no idea how I would communicate this to my own kid, but don't you actually "own" your kids, at least until a certain age? When I was a kid, I didn't think exactly like that, but I was well aware that my parents had the final say because they were the bosses over everything. (This worked well until adolescence). (Btw, my parents had five kids, too, so obviously I know you're crazy)

DavidOdden, I agree completely. And I do not think this is a boring issue. Neither do I think most gay men do, nor can I see why a straight man would. False descrimination has already been signed into law against a (albeit smaller) portion of the population. What would you think if states began ratifying laws banning people with blue eyes from marrying other blue-eyed people? Or how about entire ethnic groups from marrying at all? Personally I would like to see the government's involvement in marriage disolved, but does anyone think that is actually going to happen in the next 25 years?

In my opinion, the real hangup is not over the definition of marriage as such, but the ability for two people of the same sex to be perceived as equal to, and receive equal legal benefits as, heterosexual couples. If the original definition of marriage was what you say, there is definitely a case for the "bastardization" of the English language. However, I don't think this is the predominant issue at hand. Also, at this point in English language evolution, I think "marriage" could include both gay and straight unions.

I believe it was clear he was referring to the assertion that Ayn Rand was infallible. This is obviously not possible. Also, if it is a prerequisite that everyone must be Objectivist before they may post on this board, I know of several users already who must be banned immediately. That is not the case, in fact. Just check the first few lines of the Forum Rules. Just because Rand was especially good at "identifying fact" does not mean that she did not have bias. Check her positions on gender roles and sexuality. Or how about her taste in music? And how about her idea of good art? Maybe her admitted ignorance of the field of psychology? [Edit:] Btw Bold Standard, I thought your post was very well written and informative. Thanks for the references and thoughts.

You sound like you have a lot of debt, or family-related financial obligations. Otherwise, there is no reason why you need to keep this singular crappy job. Just find another one. If you are planning on leaving your crappy jobs for a future in race car construction (by yourself!), are you sure you can make an adequate profit to suit your future needs and wants, without adding an extra job? If not, you should forget about building race cars as a means to support yourself and think about finding something else you enjoy which will actually make you money. For me, sales is about the most miserable drudgery I can put myself through, so I would choose almost any other job over that. To me it sounds like your sentiments may be similar.

Also, I am still getting the same problem Dismuke described.

Actually, Wikipedia says that this is a false etymology, if for no other reason than because "fuck" was recorded in history before this specific acronym was recorded, or before virtually any acronyms were recorded at all.

According to Wikipedia (and to an extent the Oxford Dictionary online), "fuck" was never used as anything but a vulgar way to refer to sex. Not until recently has the term's severity died down and included other meanings ("Fuck off" means "Go away, I really don't like you."). According to Merriam-Webster Online, sexual intercourse can involve the penetration of the penis in the vagina or... not. There is a specific term for the former, however: coitus. In my opinion, the word sex is highly context-driven. And I am with Moose's opinion that language is ultimately determined by most-widespread-usage. Right now, at this moment in history, sex in America definitely includes penetration of the vagina or the ass, and has a minimal emotional weight attached to it. I can't speak for past generations because I have not studied them, nor could I say where the term will develop in the future. Maybe Ayn Rand's definition will catch on and twenty years from now nobody would dream of referring to a one-night-stand as "sex." In my opinion, Ayn Rand's definition is heavily based on unsubstantiated assertions in psychology. I busted out the Ayn Rand Lexicon to get a good idea of what her opinion was: "Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man's mind -- by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem -- a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion. Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another -- an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values." The other entries basically say the same thing, lengthened. I interpret her definitions to mean that a person can have sex (Merrium-Webster's), but as a human it is impossible to separate your mind from the action. Fair enough. Her further analysis was that since sex involves the minds of two different people, and since it feels so good, rather, since it feels better than anything in the world, it is one of the highest celebrations of life available to a person. Well, what if the two minds involved want nothing more than a really great sexual experience? Meaning, they want the physical experience and their minds know that it is all they want? Rand said to Playboy (according to the Lexicon): "When one is certain that one's choice [of a life-long mate appropriate for marriage] is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them." So, Rand thought that one-night-stands were immoral, but three-year-stands were ok? Or what about six-month-stands? Or, as I said, what if someone just wanted occasional sex with someone who fit well with them in bed?

She made a few scant remarks regarding her distaste for it. I would argue that people who think Objectivism is against homosexuality are actually using Rand's opinions on the morality of masculinity and femininity to rationalize their similar distaste. Besides all of that and whether you care about offending or not, with the available scientific evidence on sexuality, which at least leaves room for dispute, and since you have have no firsthand same-sex attraction, I don't think you are in a position to make claims on the negative morality of homosexuality.

Maybe you're right, hunterrose. Maybe Dagny (/Rand) is mostly concerned with Galt's mind. Also, thanks for the direct quote regarding Ragnar. Honestly, I didn't remember the description, and Rand doesn't duplicate characters, so you've given me reason to alter my opinion on Galt's looks. It will probably be harder to find a good enough actor than finding someone attractive enough, anyway. Synthlord mentioned a good director as being the essential element, but I think the actors are just as important. If one fails the other cannot save the movie alone. And about big-name stars pulling big crowds, I would rather just have a good movie, even if it means no big stars and less Objectivist exposure. I don't think the masses that celebrities would attract will significantly alter their thinking based on the movie, anyway. The crowds a good movie will attract, however, those who consider reviews or word of mouth beforehand, are probably more likely to consider the movie's message.

Oh man, that's a good one. I don't even have to poll people to negate that statement. I hereby proclaim that it makes a huge difference to me if a guy is "ugly" or "hot," or what I prefer: "fucking beautiful." Also, I think your negative remarks about homosexuality are offensive and inappropriate, here and elsewhere on the forum.

My guess is that most people would consider anal sex as sex. Oral sex is probably more hotly disputed. EC is approaching the subject as someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, which I would guess is why he thinks only vaginal sex is sex. So EC, what about heterosexual anal sex?