Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by JASKN

  1. Implicit in any relationship is a mutually shared philosophy which makes it possible to enjoy/appreciate the value(s) on which the relationship is built. If you both love fishing, you at least agree that life is worth living, that an enjoyable way to do that is to sit and fish, and that we should be allowed to fish. Philosophically, not much else really matters, at least with regard to your fishing excursions.


  2. Imagine a world where conceiving a gay child is a parental consideration not much different than having a boy or a girl -- it's just a fact that may or may not occur, and once known, childrearing is just adjusted somewhat. Being gay would have been in the DNA (so to speak) of your upbringing, totally normal and not with extra consideration of any kind as you grew up. A sit-down talk with anyone about being gay now would be as bizarre as "coming out" as a boy (gender politics aside).

    But, we don't live in that world yet (though it's surprisingly near). You described the current context instead yourself - your parents were/are very uncomfortable with homosexuality, enough so to be vocal about it toward their children for years. Your parents were raised in a society more hostile toward homosexuality even than your upbringing. It's baked into their brains, and now it requires of them conscious, consistent mental processes to undo. Even as a gay person, you may have had to do some of that yourself. And that is not easy, and is a lot to ask of someone, even if it's the "just" thing for them to do.

    So, I would say cut your mother some slack. Having a conversation with you about being gay is probably part of her trying to become OK with the idea of gayness herself, which is a positive step in the right direction. She cares enough about you to try to undo her lifelong viewpoint toward gays, and all of the associated mental habits that went along with it.

  3. 33 minutes ago, Nerian said:

    How can it be a waste of time if you enjoy being decorated? [...] I'd love to do it, I'm jealous they can do it! I want to do it more as a man.

    So what's stopping you? There are men out there, straight and gay, who dress in all sorts of weird/cool stuff.

  4. 14 hours ago, Nerian said:

    If anything, the ancient Greeks would be disappointed to see only women celebrating their natural beauty.

    Like this? XD

    Even most gays aren't that adventurous with their day to day clothing choices, which suggests to me it's something inherent to men to not get that fancy with their garb, within a given cultural context.

    There's an ongoing joke that women like clothes that men think are stupid. I'd guess that the "celebrating natural beauty" style is donned for the eye of men, not women. An eye motivated by sexual desire yields different results than an eye motivated by neat patterns and silhouettes.

  5. Schools have contracted companies to take these types of photographs for at least 20 years, since when I was in grade school. I'm amazed they still do with a smartphone in every pocket. I can't remember if a release was required or not, but if not I doubt they need it, given the length of time they've been at their business racket model.

    Even in my day, it was not a big deal socially whether a kid kept the photos or not. My brother worked for one of these companies for a short while, and says they tried taking good photos to increase the chance of purchase, but still, non-purchase was about 20%. If the kid is known to be "poor" by his peers, they'd whisper about that being the reason, but maybe that was just my school.

    If you're the parent who is going to make a stink about photographs without consent, your child may as well get used to it. 😆 If one of your goals is to prevent your child's embarrassment, I'd just forget about that. Parents are inherently embarrassing to some children, and how prone your child is to embarrassment is more or less out of your control.

    Finally, these school photographs are one of the best things about public school. It's something different/fun-ish for kids to do for part of a day. There is a list of longterm-damaging/horrific things that are inherent with public schools, and this sits at about #178.

  6. On 4/12/2018 at 2:08 AM, SelfishRandroid said:

    there don't seem to be very many homosexual Objectivists


    On 4/12/2018 at 2:08 AM, SelfishRandroid said:

    conversion therapy is almost exclusively discussed elsewhere in a religious context.

    [...]How likely is it that a gay person might be able to change his/her sexual orientation? How would one go about this process?

    In parts of the world still today, homosexuals are literally thrown off of roofs to their deaths. Though the US has come leaps and bounds in just a couple of short decades, many homosexual youths still grow up terrified that their social circle will discover their true sexual desires. Personally, the first half of my teen years were spent desperately trying to will myself to be attracted to females, trying to pray the gay away, and finally accepting my inner fate while still deciding I would just have to marry a woman anyway. Though not explained scientifically, there are enough individuals with stories like this to give reason to believe it is not possible to change one's sexual orientation, at least not with today's understanding of the human mind/body. Why would so many people choose a way of life that guarantees that they will be ostracized, or even murdered?

  7. 2 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

    I don't quite understand a world where an objectivist would defend a mystic junk food Buffett, and devalue an engineer who works tirelessly toward technological innovation.  If that future Capitalist economy were real I think Musk would adjust his business plan and be very successful in that world.  Unfortunately I wonder if there are Objective Capitalists who put themselves in a position to value or make profound investments in technological advancement.  

    These two men approach business in a fundamentally different way. Buffet seeks to find the "intrinsic value" of a businesses before he invests (followed by comparing it to the present market value), which means he seeks to uncover and zero in on devaluing business problems. Scrupulousness and honesty is what he sells to Berkshire investors.

    Conversely, Musk sells dreams of the future, and doesn't care at all about business, market, or economic problems, and doesn't care about not delivering on his promises. He actively lies about the nature of his businesses to obtain massive government handouts.

    An idealistic characterization of Musk's supposed forward-thinking outlook is part of what makes humanity great, just as is Buffet's down-to-earth here-and-now approach. Both men follow some irrational principles, but Musk is much worse in my opinion because he's dishonest. 

  8. 1 hour ago, happiness said:

    Though I feign disinterest, I secretly like it and am attracted to her even though I’m pretty sure she’s a different walk of life and not a long-term match for me. I’m aware of the adage “don’t shit where you eat,” but is it really that wise? Hank and Dagny were co-workers, right?

    If you're not extremely adept at seeing this kind of thing through from start to aftermath, run, do not engage! There's nothing tricker from a management perspective than a romance gone bad, and you're going to get the brunt of any negativity (even if only perceived), not the company if they can help it.

  9. 11 hours ago, Sonic & Knuckles said:

    I was raised to believe in the Christian concept of God, but eventually found that I walked away because of my own personal issues and being mad at the current scenario the whole world society is in. I just don't want to reconcile why a God is so jealous of humans and how we need to trust in him, etc. I just couldn't talk to him the way I once did. I never objectively believed the god didn't exist, that is a different question.

    I was also raised as a Christian (Baptist). As a small child, I believed everything the religion told me (some of which still infects my subconscious/personality). As a teen, religion became less of a life focus, and post-teen it took one major contradiction to push me down the hill of non-belief - the Christian view on homosexuality (which has probably morphed into something different since then). A college course on the history of religions and reading Rand's books sealed the deal, and religion has made less and less sense to me ever since. As Repairman said, an atheistic understanding of the universe allows a person to throw out a lot of confusing contradictions which need reconciling.

  10. Hi S&K, welcome to the forum (Sega characters were still popular when you were a kid?? The Dreamcast died when you were 8!). I read Atlas Shrugged first, before The Fountainhead or any of Rand’s nonfiction books, and it’s still my favorite. What have you read of Rand’s?

    I’m from Canton, which has also seen decline, but probably not as dramatically as Cleveland. Now I’m in Columbus, which seems to be the most economically strong city in this state at the moment, with Cincinnati in second by the looks of it. To keep that Ohio flavor in a city on an upswing, move down here. :)

  11. 14 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

    Back during the enlightenment [...] absent intervention a person was simply going to die.


    1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

    Suppose the cost is $100,000 in that universe: is that fair? If you pay that much to save your life, is that an exchange of value for value?

    It makes sense to me that something as valuable as your own life would come at a premium price to fix. People should feel lucky modern medicine is affordable at all - or even exists - and they should be thanking free enterprise for it, to the extent it lives at all in modern medicine.


    23 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

    The default assumption here is that a person is simply supposed to live and be healthy because - modern medical miracles.  The biggest sentiment is fear and suspicion, the system is gaming you or will "kill you".  With this attitude Doctors are swindlers at best, killers at worst.

    Same thing with business. The Western world is so rich now, ironically the reason for it has become the perceived demon preventing it!


  12. 8 minutes ago, Sameak said:

    I presume you want a definition? Well I would say that races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. An example of this would be the sub species and breeds of animals like the various types of wolves.

    Is that the scientific definition? Which genetics specifically, and in what way are each relevant?

  13. 1 hour ago, Invictus2017 said:

    Man does not have rights because he can reason.  He has rights because his fundamental  method of survival is reasoning. The latter is not true of any other organism, so no other organism has rights.


  14. The professor ushering them out like children, which I suppose they are. Like Yaron said, they really don't understand... just look at the uncomfortable expression on the girl in green's face when they blatantly recorded her en masse.

    11 hours ago, 2046 said:

    ... they seem to have held their own against the masked effeminate commies

    That faggoty moderator sure should be proud, he didn't hesitate at all and stood up for himself like a real man. ...Wait, am I doing this wrong?

  15. 5 hours ago, Grames said:

    By not caring about illegal immigration, not leaving the Paris Climate Accord, not repealing Net Neutrality, not removing Obama's freeze on drilling and mining on federal lands on offshore zones, not daring to include corporate tax reductions in tax reform, not withdrawing from UNESCO, not recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel or moving the embassy there, not halting the federal gov't land grab tactic of declaring new national monuments, not ending the foreign policy of regime change and fomenting wars, not using the "bully pulpit" he has as President to call out the kneelers of the NFL, by continuing to pretend the fascist and mercantilist regimes in China and Mexico are legitimate partners in "free trade" deals,  . . .   it's getting late here.

    Are you a closet leftist? :D This is all the kind of stuff that titillated his voters. I will grant that I'm giving him too much credit  - he didn't really plan any of this, in the same way that none of us plan our personalities.

  16. 2 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

    To be clear, history would say we should expect booms and busts, with occasional panics at a rate of (say) a couple in each investor's lifetime. But, that's different from doomsday scenarios.

    Personally, I don't believe in doomsday scenarios as long as humans have resources at hand and the ability to manipulate them - ie. anything but large-scale world annihilation.

  17. On 2/9/2018 at 1:04 AM, happiness said:

    I’ve tried to deal with the issue constructively by presenting the pro-freedom side wherever I could, but found that pretty much every time I’ve either been downvoted into oblivion or treated to the most banal displays of irrationality one could ever hope to come across.

    Might be time to accept that this result may as well be a metaphysical fact, and move on to other uses of your time.

  • Create New...