~Sophia~

Satisfaction comes from facing things and from having the sense of making positive progress, however small. Get out of the stillness. Doing pleasant things when you don't have that sense of moving forward, when you do not take care of things you know you should be doing (something - anything) does not bring the same enjoyment. It is absolutely normal. I felt the same way every time I chose to do something else when what I really needed to do, at the time, was my homework. The dissatisfaction of not taking care of things lurks in the background.

If I were depressed (or experiencing some mental problem) and on medication for it (which means it would be rather severe form) - I would for the time being assume the position that something IS off. The path to wellness for some necessary includes both, at least temporarily (but perhaps not) - medication and self development. Right now it would be hard for you to know if it is just chemistry or a result of your lack of positive self esteem. Your internal turmoil, which part of it is probably repressed, can cause harm/anxiety, even paranoia. You will need to reassess when you gain a significant level of internal peace and self esteem. You just may find that some of your symptoms will disappear. However, if not, then you have to treat it as something to manage in your life. Look at yourself as an outsider and at your issues as something to manage - like a manager would a subordinate. He would assess strengths and weaknesses he has to deal with and and work with both.

The most profound advice I have ever gotten was "be kind to yourself". It is a necessary part of being rationally selfish. (I think a lot of Objectivists tend to be harsh on themselves). I don't know if you in fact are ill but let's say that you are suffering from a mental disorder. Well, if that is the case, that is a reality for you and there is no other way for you to live but to accept it and find solutions for yourself around it. If true, not accepting that is like fighting against the fact that the sky is blue. You can't win that battle and it will only drain whatever life force you have left. Reaching that acceptance about who you are, including the fact that you are gay and anything else you don't like about yourself - is a necessary step for your life to improve. Beating yourself up psychologically for things you can't change, for things which you wish you could have been but are not, for past failures and mistakes - is life destroying. People are sometimes their own worst enemies. You have to reach acceptance and self forgiveness. If you don't eliminate your self hatred it will keep sabotaging your efforts to improve your life. When you forgive yourself and reach the state of acceptance of your circumstances then you can start thinking about how you can be the hero of your own life. As long as you are alive you have the possibility of a new start. Heroism is defined by unbreached devotion to the good, regardless of obstacles. The most salient moral characteristic of a hero is courage - the moral strength to persevere difficulty. Dr. Andrw Bernstein wrote: "A brave man is not necessary one who is unafraid but one who performs whatever protective actions his values require, no matter what the intensity of his fear." Notice how there is no mention of intelligence or IQ; notice that good means any good especially what is rationally good for you; notice there is no specific type or scale requirement. There isn't anything about heroism that would make it outside of your reach. You have to do some analysis about what is possible for you: what is rationally within your reach, given your circumstances and your abilities. Then you have to pursuit it and continue to be kind to yourself when you encounter set backs (including the self created ones). "Protective actions" also include nourishing, psychologically, the kind of mental state which would keep you on the right track . You have to treat staying on the right path as a separate value in itself - it has to get its own focus. If you get off the wagon, get up and get back on it. It may mean that you have to start small and slowly build on it. Any small success is still a success and brings you closer to your goals. If you can do this - actively pursue your own highest potential and don't give up - you will be a hero and a truly selfish man. Your measure is your own potential - not the potential of others.

So you want to stop building of a Mosque near Ground Zero because that is going to make America to appear weak but you think sending a message to the enemies using zoning laws would show strength?

Opposition to a particular action is not equivalent to advocacy of inaction. What you and others are missing is the understanding of just how dangerous it is to let go of the proper due process. Absence of those objective controls on government's use of force leads to tyranny. This is a bad solution to a legitimate problem.

This is absurd. Pick up "We the Living" for a refresher then come visit. I wish I could drop you off in the middle of North Korea and make you stay there for a while without your credit card and a cell phone.

I have not quoted Rand out of context. I do personally know how it is like to live without freedom. I was raised in a communist Poland. It may seem afordable to spit on the freedom you still enjoy (and both US and Canada are still two of the most freest countries in the world) when you don't know what it is not to have freedom. When you give up individual rights in the process of defending the country - there is nothing worth defending.

Without government respecting property rights, no other rights are possible. It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Rand wrote in the Textbook of Americanism: Until there is concrete evidence of connection between the builders/owners/operators of the mosque with terrorist organizations - that kind of government intervention is a violation of property rights.

I absolutely agree with Diana here. Relevant ARI article - please read

I do watch my carbohydrate consumption but I won't ever eliminate carbohydrate from my diet. I have lost count of reported health problems after switching to strict no-carb diet (including one from my own family - my sister started having all kinds of serious health issues (including forgetfulness and hard time to maintain mental focus) - some of which she may have to deal with for the rest of her life (she is 34), after one year on a no-carb diet. Unfortunately, she is one of those women who think that her looks is the most important part of her, the most valuable thing she has to offer, and she only started taking this seriously after her health issues started affecting her appearance as well. So sad, I know). The excellent health status among starch-eating ethnic groups contradicts the currently popular notion that carbohydrates are a cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other western health problems. For example, islanders of Kitavans ( tropical area in Papua New Guinea) eating very high carbohydrate diet reach old age completely free of heart disease, most cancers, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other various Western Diseases. Their great health is shared by many high-carbohydrate eating cultures all over the world - something documented repeatedly by many great 20th century health and nutrition scholars. The long primate history of fruit eating (fructose), high activity of human salivary amylase for efficient starch digestion and some other features of human physiology, as well as the absence of Western disease among high starch-eating traditional populations suggest that humans are well prepared for a high carbohydrate intake (at least from non-grain food sources). The key probably is the type of carbohydrate (starchy root vegetable vs. processed food), the amount consumed, and what we are eating in conjunction. As with anything else, it is a good idea to do some reading on both sides, before making a decision. Don't assume it is a good idea just because many Objectivists advocate it. P.S. I am well aware that one can loose weight on no-carb diet. My sister lost weight too (and so have I when I did it for a short period of time) - so what. I lost weight but I could not hike a trail I have been doing for years.

Not treating sex casually does not translate to being uptight about sex.

And it is disgusting to see this on this board. And all it took is a bit of blue paint.

How does it work? I always thought (mistakenly it seems) that in US employers must pay employment insurance regardless of claims.

The degree of success is dependent on the degree of the other person's rationality. Full agreement, as indicated by previous posters, is not required but there must be sufficient commonality and agreement on important to you values. You have to answer that for yourself.

I don't know the details of this situation but... There could be many reasons why an inventor would not want to. Most small biotechnological companies, after discovering something new, make this choice more often than not. Such decision says nothing about the validity of the invention. In fact, one could argue that the potential of the discovery is confirmed by someone being interested in buying it for a considerable amount of money. Again, there could be many good business reasons for that. For example, they invested a lot into the current system and are under long term contracts thus switching, at this time, does not make sense financially.

I am with themadkat. Great movie for me.

It is our mind that determines the essence of our humanity. He only jumped bodies and his choices reflected the most noble of human values. He was also hired to learn about them so him participating in their culture and activities was not his attempt at not being a human. In the end, he stayed behind to be with his girlfriend. If I made that choice, I would also think of the most practical way of living on that planet and permanently taking control of that body does seem very reasonable choice to me considering the circumstances. I understand that there were enough bad aspects in the movie that made it not enjoyable for some but let's not make stuff up that simply was not there. Restrain that rationalism.

I would like to offer another perspective because I do think that the focus on illegal immigrants as a damaging group to your economy is a bit misplaced and their impact exaggerated. It has almost like a smoke and mirrors effect taking the focus from problems and violations of much bigger magnitude. Population of US: 309,264,200 Number of illegal immigrants: ~ 11,000,000 ends up being about 3.5% (and only some % of those are looters) If your hospitals go bankrupt it won't be because of illegal immigrants.

(bold mine) My answer (since I am in the "others" group) to your part in bold is - you have not.

The number seems high to me. Many immigrants enter legally and their temporary visa allows them to get SS card. They become illegals after their visa expires. I think that the number that actually enters illegally is much smaller (it is dangerous and not that easy). In terms of the stolen Ids - it is not illegals who obtain them, print fake cards, and sell them. Citizens working for government make all of this possible (and you would be surprised - not necessarily past immigrants themselves). The problem of stolen identities is a fairly new issue, I think. In the past, 10 years ago or so, it was possible for a visitor to obtain SS number/card legally for the purpose of banking. It looked the same as normal SS card but it had an imprint on it stating "not for employment purposes". Back then illegals who wanted to work would either remove the imprint somehow or try to obtain a fake card without the imprint but with the same number that was linked to their name. They would use this number to file and pay taxes and because it was linked to their name, and in the future they hoped to legalize their stay, I don't know of anyone who would claim dependents they did not have. After your government stopped issuing these cards the problem of stolen identity must have started. I have not herd of it back then. All of this was of course illegal but it was not directly harming another person by getting them in trouble with the IRS.

This is not not true. The answer is - it depends.

Usually. Every now and then, however, on this board, you can find people actually advocating breaking laws as means of protest or even influencing change. I assume it is because some people here do lean more Libertarian than Objectivist. As far as I understand what you mean above. Yes.

This is an example of the rule of men, though. What are the consequences if you apply this in principle? Would you want your Constitution (or any other ideologically complex law) to be put routinely to such "enough people test"? ------------------------ Forget anarchy - the rule of law is the most important restriction placed on the people who have been voted into power. Societal overall acceptance of selective law ignoring, even if not resulting in anarchy, leads to a path you don't want to go down. My previous comment about Democrats getting emboldened by the actions of Republicans - is an example of the consequences of the "enough people have done it." ------------------------ I am going to repeat one of my comments above and say that the consequences, in terms of affecting what is or is not socially acceptable, will depend on the visibility of your action. Engaging in sadomy in the privacy of your bedroom won't probably lead to anarchy or policy makers ignoring the law of the land.

And there he writes: (bold mine) What he writes later is worth considering as well: I wrote about this before. In Canada, in some circumstances, the period of ineligibility is 10 years (longer than the period before you can become a citizen, actually). EDIT: I would like to add that 17 years ago when my US visa was about to expire - I would have been happy to sign a life long contract that would make me ineligible for such programs indefinitely.