Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Alfa

  1. What about a man who is tall, muscular, tanned with a perfect smile. A man who has confidence, integrity and competence, and who cares deeply about his woman? Or, a woman with a perfect hour-glass shape, who takes great care to look her best, but is still strong, intelligent, elegant, benevolent and caring?
  2. This is clearly not a serious attempt at making a movie. More likely they're just making a movie to keep the copyrights, and perhaps later sell them for a profit. If they were serious about it they would have gotten better financing. A 5 million dollar budget is nothing for a movie, and if they really have a good script and a good production plan I see no reason for not getting at least ten times that money(which is still a small budget). Considering the success of the book a movie should have real potential of turning in a good profit. So the fact that the budget looks like a joke tells me they have no intention of trying to make a good movie here(or, at the very best, trying to make a cheap promotional piece to get investors for a serious production).
  3. I don't know what you're referring to here, but the foreword in The Fountainhead(a book she says would not have existed without Frank O'connor) clearly shows proof of such hero-worship. However, instead of speculating about her personal life one should read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which quite clearly illustrates the concept(especially Galt's and Dangy's interaction at the gulch).
  4. I could be wrong but i've always looked at it more like a "it's too late... to save your soul". So it's not so much about making a career change late in life, i'm sure there are alot of people who have managed that successfully, but rather that Peter had lived his whole life as a second-hander and would lack the ability to become a first-hander(he could not hold values strongly and deeply enough).
  5. Great choice of engine there!
  6. Have you seen the trailer, and if so would you say it's a good representation of what to expect from the movie? I've only seen the trailer and the idea I got from it was a bunch of kids trying to be funny as "superheroes". Plus Nicholas Cage, but you already addressed that. Judging from the trailer the movies seemed painfully bad.
  7. Sweet, I didn't know there were iPhone apps like that. I think i'm going to get a new phone soon, and the iPhone is starting to look very interesting. Yeah, it's always interesting to see how new concepts will develop in the near future. Even if this turns out to be an initial failure, which I doubt it will, they can always expand and improve upon it to better meet the consumers needs and introduce new innovations. If you're reffering to my post then I think you you misunderstood me a little bit. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't accurate enough to scribble notes on. I was only looking at this from my own very niched needs. Just recently I glanced a little at the tablet-PC market when I learned some newer devices had the ability to draw and sketch on them. It's something that could be very usefull for me. However, these machines are pretty expensive, the display quality doesn't seem very exciting and the drawing abilities are very rudimentary. What I would love to see is a device that has the functionality of a PC, like the iPad does, a good display and at the same time the ability to use it as a high quality drawing tablet. Something like combining a tablet-PC with a Wacom Cintiq, only more affordable.
  8. When I saw the comcercials I initially thought they must have been smoking crack, with all the talk about how it feels and how fun it is because it's a touch screen. But then, a really advanced LED-backlit touchscreen and what looks to be really intuitive user interface. That looks really sweet. The price tag also looks very competitive. I'd be all over it if it wasn't for more immediate techological needs. To me that would be a nice toy I could play with while I travel to work, and $499 just for that... It will be interesting to see how that technology evolves though. Something i'd personally like to see is an iPad that can be used as a highly sensitive drawing tablet.
  9. You mean the obvious phallic reference and a woman about to perform fellatio with an expression that says; "damn, that's big!"? I think it's a fairly fun way to say it's a big-ass sandwich. Morally, I see nothing wrong with making jokes like that. I would. Looks big and tasty. Pun intended.
  10. I think that's a question for scientists to answer. If the condition is caused by some anomaly in the development of the brain, I don't see how it could be evading reality. If, on the other hand, it's some form of psycological issue, then it would be a different matter. I don't know which is the case, and from the article on wikipedia it seems that the science is not conclusive enough.
  11. Despite all the rumors on the internet regarding Lady Gaga, I don't think she's really a man. But there is, however, some avant garde fashion for men also... http://www.buzzfeed.com/rickt2/penis-pants-akd Pesonally I like more traditional mens clothing, but with a more modern take on it. I think it's elegant, timeless and masculine. Like my personal style guru, whom I may have a slight man-crush on: (Too bad suits like that cost a fortune )
  12. I'm not familiar with that book so i'll just speak generally here. The strange thing is, it does work. Atleast insofar as getting some high-status women into bed(a good fulfilling relationship is another thing, that's somethng you can't build on manipulation and fakery). I think the really interesting question is why it works, and I can see several reasons. Some things can be just plain fun, and if you're having fun... well, there's not much more to say about that really. Other things sub-communicate the right things. It's a way of showing(even if it can be fake) that you have confidence, self-esteem, courage, or any other valuable trait. Then it can also be outright manipulation, for example by lowering her self-esteem, making her qualify herself to you, reward/punish the behaviour you like/dislike etc. However, when talking about what "works" it's important to keep in mind that alot of things do, atleast to a certain extent. I mean, heck, if getting laid is the ultimate goal one could become a violent criminal. Not a good idea for a rational human being though. And the same thing goes for different seduction-techniques; some things may be fun, flirtatious and innocent, while other things are pretty bad. I think the best approach one could take this is to start improving ones character, learn to approach and talk to women, and then read different materials on seduction to get a better idea of how attraction and interaction works. Actually, alot of these guys started with zero charm. Mystery was your typical geek with long hair and metal t-shirts. Neil Strauss wrote for Rolling Stone magazine and toured with Mötley Crue, but the only one he had kissed was Tommy Lee. I think that's the reason why the material often looks the way it does; these guys used to have huge problems with getting women, and being the geeks they were they took a very analytical approach to it. People who are so called "naturals" often frown upon it, because to them it's the simplest thing in the world. And in a way, it really is. That's my take on it too. This is also something very typical in the seduction community. They make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, from the theory of evolution to psychology. Why would you write something like that? Personally, while I could write something about a particularly interesting or fun interaction, i'd never go that far. I don't like to kiss and tell. I don't even share that kind of information with my closest friends.
  13. I think the seduction community is too diverse to talk about in such general terms. It's such a huge mix of both good and bad ideas, and everyone has their own take on it. I mean, you have everything from canned routines, to "inner game", to NLP and hypnosis. Some things are really messed up while for other things there's alot of truth and insight. Generally I see two major problems that apply to most of them. The first one is the idea of "fake it until you make it". What this essentially means is that you're urged to take on a fake character, or persona, and a bunch of routines in order to come across as funny, confident and interesting. The idea is then that in time you will become that person. Problem is, that don't happen. Instead people need to work harder and harder to maintain a fake sense of self and their self-esteem is dependet on their sucess with women, which in turn is a rather empty "reward" since it's not based on your own virtue. Some "gurus" are worse than others in this regard. Mystery probably being among the worst of them. Second problem is the lack of standards. The only real standard is wether or not you get the girl, and how hot she is. Virtue is only interesting as long as it serves that purpose, and every woman is treated almost as if they are the same(meaning aside from looks; actually falling in love with someone is treated more like a sickness, because without any standard for judging others noone can stand above the rest). With that said though, there are some really valuable things one can learn(from some of the material atleast). Looking at the fundamentals principles of why it works, because it does(well, maybe not Ross Jeffries hypnosis-crap, that's just plain creepy), one can learn to better understand the interaction between man and woman and what creates attraction. So in a way they have the fundamentals right, and it has been tested in reality over and over again. It's just that the application, and the mix of good and bad philosophy, is something to be aware of.
  14. I don't know the origins of the tie, but as for it's function today I think it helps to think about the suit as a picture frame. Lapels, shirt collars and ties all help to frame the face, and that's part of the idea behind traditional mens ware. The tie, well... ties the different elements together. It also helps emphasize the silhuoette that the suit creates(elegant lines that broaden the shoulders and narrows the waist), atleast when we're talking proper ties that broaden towards the bottom(thin straight ties have been in and out of fashion many times, and they do not create the same effect).
  15. Since I haven't espoused any eugenics I sincerely doubt that you actually read any of my arguments. I suggest you do that first, and that you do it carefully and objectively. As for my own looks, I look good enough to like what I see in the mirror. That's enough for me. No, allow me to explain: you are clearly arguing against the "paraphrasing" that "asherwolf" made, wich I assume was a misrepresation of a couple of early post made by ZSorenson and me. You may want to take a look at the first page of this thread.
  16. She was also so taken by Frank O'Connors looks that she practically chased him down and tripped him on stage to get his attention.
  17. No. The purpose is to lead a happy and fulfulling life, and you should choose a mate accordingly - i.e according to your personal value hierarchy. Someone who personifies your moral ideals could be a GREAT value however. This is just a childish misrepresentation of the arguments presented earlier in this thread. You've done a poor job of reading and you're jumping to conclusions that are not supported by any arguments presented here. No, beauty and intelligence are not the only things one can value. Clearly... and please don't make any more attempts until you have actually read and understood what has already been written here. Your tone is rude and disrespectful, and your arguments have completely missed the target.
  18. He probably hates himself though. Atleast he should do that, but on the other hand that would actually indicate some decency on his part.
  19. Just saw this one... well, sort of. Michael Moore makes me sick. I felt like taking a shower to wash my soul so I just quickly scanned through large parts of this crap. The message was pretty simple though: Michael Moore hates america, rich people and just feeds on the misery of poor people(whose misfortune is blamed on capitalism, of course). Big surprise, eh?
  20. Speaking of which, I stumbled upon a study recently where they had tried to assess the ideal male body. Apparently what women had found most attractive was a chest-waist-hip ratio of 100-80-100, and a BMI between 19-23. I think however the women were just afraid to admit they prefered the silverback alpha-male physiques.
  21. What's rational is seeking out women(or men) with the characteristics that you're attracted to. Beauty is usually somewhere among those characteristics, and it is a rational value. Regarding intricism, I think this is a good quote from Leonard Peikoff: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/beauty.html Luckily for most people though, our choices can make a huge difference. Often beauty, or good looks, is a choice and an achievment(especially as we age). If it's a psychological and biological need then it IS rational, because it means following our nature. Beauty is virtous insofar as it follows from being virtous. Yep, thank you!
  22. That distinction is wrong. Looks is a wider concept of which beauty is a part of. Some aspects are determined by what we are born with. You don't choose to be short or tall, if you're going to have a nice jaw-line or high cheekbones etc. That's the basic framework, which can be beautiful or not, that you have to work with. The rest is up to your choices, it can either add or subtract from your looks or beauty, and it most certainly also plays a role in sexual attraction. If beauty is a "tool" in sexual attraction it's also a rational value, because sex is a great value. You're talking about platonic love here, devoid of sexual attraction, which is more akin to friendship than romantic love. Pursuing that for romantic purposes is a sure way to misery. Personally, i'd go for the thrill of being alive and living passionately. And so I swear, by my life and love it, that I will never own a mini-van.
  23. You're splitting hairs now. You're saying it's ugly in art because the artist chose to depict physical deformities, yet somone born with them is not ugly because it wasnt their choice. Still you're making the same judgement as anyone with a pair of working eyes would make, if it wasn't "suboptimal", deformed - yes, even ugly, though you refuse to admit that - then there's no way you could make that negative judgement of the artist. If you really did not think it was ugly you could as well have tried to pull some BS about it being "another form of beauty". But the fact is that it is deformed; it's twisted, ill proportioned and lacks harmony. And therefore, it also lacks beauty. That's why it's so disgusting and appalling to portray it as something else, as something beautiful. My question is; why do you keep doing that? As Jake has already pointed out, choice only matters when morally juding someone. But we're talking beauty here, not moral stature.
  • Create New...