miseleigh
-
Posts
212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by miseleigh
-
-
I don't really keep up with the music scene, so I don't know any names of good drummers, but the guy from Guster is crazy. And then of the entire drumline in Blast!. And Stomp, althought I haven't actually seen that yet (sob!), and then Blue Man Group. All good
I'm more into percussion than set; a good battery is always fun, and a good mallet line is excellent, and I'm just impressed by any decent tympanist- I tried playing those once, they're ridiculous. All that tuning in the middle of the song without a tuner. In case you couldn't tell, it was marching band for me, not jazz band 
What kind of music does your band do? 'Rock' is a little generic- what bands influenced you? Did you guys write everything yourselves? Composing's hard- I've got a couple friends who are good at it, but I've never quite figured it out myself.
-
Sure enough, empirical evidence from other forum members have backed God up on this one, saying that stripping is not done in an atmosphere of respect, and is therefore degrading (to all involved).
I don't remember seeing any empirical evidence on this point yet- mostly opinions, and people have disagreed on these. If I am mistaken, would you please quote the evidence you refer to?
What could be more valuable to a beautiful girl than her body? To sell it for a few dollars indicates that she is making a sacrifice, ie she is trading her body (infinite value) for a few dollars. She comes out with a net loss and therefore stripping is immoral.She keeps her body; therefore, she is not trading it away, and meanwhile gains (probably more than just) a few dollars; and therefore stripping is at least amoral. And her mind could be more valuable to her- I would be much more opposed to using my mind for something possibly immoral than selling views of my body, and if it came down to a choice between keeping my looks or keeping my mind- well, losing my rationality would mean losing my humanity. I'll lose my looks long before, thanks.
-
Following the crowd and adding my pic...
It's in my profile too (almost), but I figure people won't really want to click on that if they're reading the whole topic at once (like I just did) so here I am
edit: changed pic
-
I agree with OwenKellogg- if someone claims that they're 'not worthy' they could be saying it for one of two reasons: 1) they want to break up with you but want to try to let you down easily, or 2) they actually believe that you're better than they are and they don't deserve you. If the reason was #1, he's not honest about how he actually feels about you and didn't want to tell you why he actually wanted to break up with you. It could be because there was another girl, or maybe he's kowtowing to his parents; but in any case, he lied, and it will probably happen again. If he actually thought he wasn't not good enough for you, it won't change much over only 3 months. He'll have relapses, possibly hiding them, but the feeling will still be there; again, the same situation will probably pop up again.
It is a good sign that he managed to stand up to his parents, but it sounds like he has very little sense of self, and not much self-esteem. If that's the case, he'll be dependent on you to reassure him that he's worth it, and in his mind he'll keep destroying that by telling himself he's not. You've probably made your decision already, but my advice would be to move on.
-
Isn’t an inch an inch everywhere? How is time different than any other sort of measurement?
Actually, an inch changes at near lightspeed in preceisely the same way time does- see this thought experiment. Mass will increase (according to an outside reference frame) as well.
What empirical evidence is there (other than atomic clock experiments) that time can move faster or slower depending upon your speed?You can continue to say that with any empirical evidence provided. If you're truly interested, and don't mind wading through lots of technical jargon and unintuitive experiments, I found this website that lists experiments concerned with special relativity (although I don't really have the time or patience to go validate everything listed myself.)
So what about the most compelling piece of evidence the atomic clock? It is my understanding that the atomic clock works on the principle of molecular vibrations of atoms. If this is true, then the atomic clock experiment really proves nothing about time. The experiment demonstrates that at high speeds atoms vibrate slower but this does not necessarily translate into "time is passing slower."Special relativity does not claim that 'time is passing slower.' It says that time passes slower relative to an unaccellerating reference frame (I would use 'stationary', but there's no such thing.) Somebody watching a spaceship from Earth would see that the ship's clock is moving slower; the person on the spaceship would see a clock on earth moving slower; the actual event is that the ship's clock moves slower relative to Earth's due to the accelleration the ship required to get away from Earth.
This article appears to be a very in-depth and comprehensive explantion of special relativity and how/why it works.
-
I think the same thought processes that parents use to give a boy a toy truck to play with and give a girl a doll affect the way they're brought up to think. Boys are taught to 'stay strong' when it comes to being emotional, whereas girls are often taught that 'it's ok to cry'- this provides a much deeper connection with emotions in girls than it does in boys, and those emotions often precede logical thought. I know many intelligent women who allow emotions to get in the way of logic- I am often guilty of this myself.
I had the gift of being born to logical and intelligent parents, specifically my father (my mother's smart, but she definately lets her emotions rule more often than they should.) I became the 'son' in the family- helping with woodworking projects and taught math at an early age, whereas my sister was closer to my mother and is clearly the 'daughter'. I think this came about because I'm the older one, and when my sister was born my mother had to devote more attention to her while my father spent more time with me, during that crucial toddler stage. I think if there was a larger age difference between us then I would have had a closer connection with my mother and would likely have a harder time being logical rather than emotional; the same would likely be true if my sister had been born first. I remember my father telling me at a very young age to go up to a stranger and say 'The square root of 81 is 9, and the square root of 9 is 3' which I would then do, though I had absolutely no idea what it meant. My sister, however, was never asked to do anything similar. She preferred her Barbies and I preferred my K'nex; she's going into physical therapy and I'm going into computer science. It's not that my sister isn't intelligent -she is- she's just not very logical.
My neighbors, for another example, were raised traditionally- the boys mowed the lawn and the girls did the laundry. The two boys are by far more logical than the two daughters, and the older daughter is the oldest of the children and more logical than her sister.
Because of all this, I am inclined to think that the lack of logical women arises mostly from how they were raised- anything that occurs at a later stage in life wouldn't have as much of an effect on the way somebody thinks. Makes it very hard to find good friends of my own sex- but at least I don't have to worry too much about my boyfriend finding somebody better than me
-
Let's see- how I've changed since adoptiong Objectivist ideas (laughs).
To start, I'm just going to note that this is a story more than anything else, about how my life has changed rather than my thoughts or ideals.
I used to be Christian. Not a strong one, mind- I was one of those CE (Christmas & Easter) Christians, mostly because I could not accept the Bible as an historical book, and I had major issues with certain sects of the religion (Catholicism, mostly.) However, I was Christian enough for my boyfriend's parents to allow us to date- his family's Evangelical, and his dad's a pastor. For those who have no idea what Evangelicals believe (at least, these ones in particular) as compared to other Christians, they're the ones who think the Earth is 10,000 years old, there were dinosaurs on the ark, Mary was actually a virgin, etc. In other words, the Bible to the letter. Our religious differences didn't bother us very much- he would never try to 'convert' me unless I wanted to do so myself, and though I continuously tried to convince him that evolution was the way to go, I wouldn't push the subject far. Every other aspect of our relationship was great- we were on the same level intellectually, though he worked harder in school, and we'd been best friends for years before it got serious. We'd dated a couple times before, but it didn't work out and we always went back to being friends. The last time we tried was different- we were more deeply in love, and I was starting to think we would get married.
I had read The Fountainhead before, and I had read Atlas Shrugged before, but neither of them had made a great impact on me (I was young and didn't fully understand what Ayn Rand was saying.) But then I read Atlas Shrugged again.
Suddenly I was an athiest, or agnostic at best. I wanted to continue my relationship with my boyfriend even with this 'setback', because I believed we would be able to work through the religious differences. But as I said, he was a true Evangelist- and there's a sentence in the Bible that says “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (II Corinthians 6:14) This, of course, says that Christians should not marry non-Christians. It took a week for the man I thought I would marry to decide he could no longer date me.
Seven months later, I am more fully involved with Objectivism, although to claim to be an Objectivist at this stage would be hypocritical, as I'd have to accept many of the ideas contained within it on faith since I have not had time to think through all of them myself yet. But I will no longer attempt to date anyone who believes that sacrifice is a virtue, or anyone who will believe something without proof. Overall, it was definately in my self-interest to read that book- my relationship with my family has also changed, and I am learning to love myself in a way that's been nearly impossible for most of my life.
I'm still best friends with him. I value his company, and he values mine, mostly because we can talk about anything without turning it into an argument. My core values have changed enough that all attraction I had towards him has disappeared entirely, and we're truly just friends. Instead, I have found someone else, a man who's intelligent, funny, ambitious, and shares my highest ideals and moral code. He has been helping me along my path towards Objectivism, understanding when I have relapses and let my emotions affect me without thinking through them. As long as we continue to reason out the things we differ on, as we have been, then we'll probably... well. It's still early to think that way, and he's probably going to read this.
Objectivism has changed who and how I love. Thank God for that!
-
Those who support the gambling industry haven't seen its effects. [...] I don't care if it makes money, it is a terrible thing for society. People for some reason think they can win when they just can't. It ruins lives, separates families and for what?
Any rational person will not play for more money than he can afford to lose, knowing that there is always a chance of losing. Gambling does not ruin lives. Guns don't kill people. People do. It is solely the responsibility of the person gambling to ensure that he does not destroy his own life by playing. There are plenty of people out there who gamble without destroying their lives or their families. Banning those casinos could ruin more lives than allowing them does- Native Americans on land that isn't good for anything else, for example.
I also do not see productive value in stripping. [...] I have never herd strippers claiming any sense of productive achievement ether - most of them were honest about the fact that they did it for the money.Well, if they're doing it for the money then it's obviously productive in at least one way, and they're achieving their goals without harming others or initiating force. In addition, I would just like to note that the statue of Dominique in Roark's temple was naked, showing that Roark, at least (if not Miss Rand herself), thought that the naked female form (in public!) was a very good way of showing the virtues of man.
-
Well, I don't know how much of a 'skill' stripping is- I don't think it belongs in the same category as playing poker professionally. I do think one could use it to obtain the funds for a better endeavor. But poker was the original focus.
-
@Lathanar: When someone says a generalization that women need help from others, it insults me. Some people may need additional help at times, but I interpreted your statement as applying only to women because they are weaker. However, I could make that argument for many men as well. I am sure you know some skinny 115 lb males who can't move a sticky door. Did you mean that men should open the door for females (and only females) because they are weaker? I apologize for my earlier post if this is not what you intended.
I also apologize to everyone for seeing chauvinism where it's probably not intended. I see women being treated unequally far too often, due solely to gender, and it is a somewhat sore point with me. It will help if we can all be clear in our statements- I think 'woman' works for a rational human being who just happens to be female, whereas 'female' might be the better word for people with those physical characteristics that all women have. In other words, a 'woman' is a female with additional valued attributes such as exceptoinal looks or a mind.
Of course, it might be better to just leave gender out of it entirely, but it seems to keep coming back...
-
-
Hmm. Apparently we are still considered 'the weaker sex.' I find that fairly amusing, as I am actually stronger than a lot of guys I know (as in, have won wrestling matches with them), and a couple friends of mine could beat up most of them (one plays rugby and the other's on a crew team.) (And, no, we're not super burly beefy girls.)
The dresses might possibly be a legit point, but I think it's more likely that it stemmed from the fact that a 'lady' did not do work, and avoided any activities that would make her look like she had been doing so. Pale skin (ie: she stays indoors) was prized, and the more delicate she was, the better. As such, she would probably avoid reaching for doors if there was someone else to do it for her, because opening the door would be seen as a crude thing to do. Only peasants needed to open doors themselves, because they wouldn't have a servant around to do it for them.
So, go ahead and open doors for 'ladies' if you like, but I prefer to be a woman qua woman, and would much rather open the door myself than have someone open it for me because he thought the door would be too heavy for me.
-
As far as I can tell, she did change the meanings, but in any conversations with Objectivists her meanings will be the ones intended. I think she did this because there is no word that actually means what she was trying to say, and selfish is fairly close. She really changed the connotation more than the actual meaning, and took the word literally: self*ish, which can only mean what she intended, vs. selfish as one word instead of it's parts, which has the meaning we grew up knowing. Besides, saying 'I act in rational self-interest' just doesn't sound the same as 'I am selfish.'
From Webster's 1828 edition"Regarding one's own interest chiefly or soley; influenced in actions by a view to private advantage."
The only person that has tried to change the definition is Rand.
That definition is not negative, and sounds almost exactly like her definition...
This article (although it is a TOC article
) sounds accurate according to all I know about Objectivism. Perhaps it will shed a little light on this issue. -
You should consider the untenability of gambling as a life-long career when evaluating its morality.
Professional poker may be gambling, but it is also a skill, and as such is perfectly tenable as a life-long career, as shown by numerous people who do make a decent living off it.
The thing I've noticed is that gambling in any form (or stripping, for that matter) is usually not a quick or easy route to riches that you can the apply to some other pursuit.@JMeganSnow- If gambling (or stripping) is the pursuit, then then it doesn't need to be a quick and easy route to riches. Do you have experience that shows that neither of these are viable ways to make money fairly quickly? As far as I know, strippers can make quite a bundle, and I'm pretty sure poker can as well.
Using a learned skill (any skill) to make money sounds perfectly moral to me, especially if it is something the person enjoys doing, takes pride in, and people are willing to pay for. If I spent years perfecting my poker skills, why shouldn't I take pride in the result? This is no more immoral than Kay Ludlow's career, or Richard Halley's- both learned a skill, provide others with entertainment from that skill, and enjoy utilizing that skill themselves. A person who pays to go see a play recieves a similar value from it as a person who is willing to pay to play or watch poker- perhaps more, because he is utilizing his mind in the second, whereas in the first case he is simply watching, and he has a chance of earning money himself in the second, where he doesn't in the first. Simply because the 'product' is an intangible one should not make it less valid.
-
Not if they are allowed to leave when they don't like the system... in that case, it remains voluntary to stay.
-
The attraction to underage boys in ancient Greece seems to be well-explained on Wikipedia. The inclusion of the painted images with men reaching out to fondle younger boys seems conclusive that this was actually practiced, and it's supposed acceptance shows that it was probably not harmful to the boys. If all of that is true, it suggests that this attraction is not merely genetic but more determined by the social mindset of the times.
An article on the Ayn Rand Institute web page says that "for a love relationship to work men and women should understand that:
* Both partners must possess self-esteem.
* Self-esteem is self-generated and self-earned, not something given to you by your partner.
* Passion in love and a passion for one's work are linked. "
It also says that Ayn Rand believed sex to be a physical demonstration of that love, and sex was only moral if that love was in place.
So the morality of sex with underage children simply becomes a matter of how well the particular child understands and possesses the above qualities. This is not something that could be determined by age alone, but instead should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
As for the whole 'exploring each other' thing- as far as I can tell, it's usually an act of curiosity, not sexual interest or love. Does that change whether it's considered immoral or not?
-
Oh yeah, there's a whole lot of online etiquette ('netiquette') that's definately new (obviously.) But that caps thing is just plain annoying. I always find it annoying whenever someone puts EVERYTHING IN CAPS and I'm much less likely to listen to what they have to say as a result. It's just like, calm down there tiger, we're not going anywhere. If you have something useful to say, we'll listen. Putting it all in caps just sounds like you're trying to force people to listen because you know there's no actual content.
Netiquette was probably created by the current 40 yr. age group, since they're really the ones who created the internet, although it's the younger crowd that uses it more I think. But I always find it funny when some adult starts complaining about how rude kids are these days, when online there's a whole set of guidelines that those very same kids follow.
But just the fact that those internet rules happened shows that there is probably a need for them. If more people understood that, guys wouldn't get nasty comments from women who assume that you're holding a door open for them just because they're female. (Though if that is why you're doing it, you deserve those comments...
) (and I know, that topic's been beaten to death. Sorry.) -
Try using courteous instead of chivalrous- it's a much better word for the definition you want. Most of the country (at least as far as I can tell) use the first definition Google gave you. As for the second definition, what were those ideals? Wikipedia says "Towards noble ladies above all, the knight was to be gracious and gentle. " The version of the code of chivalry shown also includes rules like these: "Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions" and "Thou shalt defend the Church."
Another source (one of the first to pop up on Google) gives a modern code of chivalry, which includes the following:
"Courage: Being a knight often means choosing the more difficult path, the personally expensive one. Be prepared to make personal sacrifices in service of the precepts and people you value. At the same time, a knight should seek wisdom to see that stupidity and courage are cousins. Courage also means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather than seeking the expedient lie. Seek the truth whenever possible, but remember to temper justice with mercy, or the pure truth can bring grief.
Franchise: Seek to emulate everything I have spoken of as sincerely as possible, not for the reason of personal gain but because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to a small world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your life with these qualities. Should you succeed in even a tiny measure then you will be well remembered for your quality and virtue."
Umm, sure.
-
Ragnar, I also agree with almost everything you've said. Sums it all up nicely. I'm a little confused about your stance on chivalry, tho.
1) Who cares if it’s a man or woman. Its courteous to hold the door for either. Their sex means nothing.I agree with Maarten. Chivalry still exists. It is only chauvinism in the minds of specific people – People I don’t necessarily care to associate with. It is still chivalry and I will still do it.So do you hold doors just for women or for both genders?
-
Well, manners shouldn't be the only way to judge someone, but it is usually one of the first things learned about a person. If a person interrupts me while I'm speaking the first time we meet, I will take an instant dislike to them. That impression may change with time as I get to know them better, but it would have been more in line with their own self-interest to have waited for me to finish speaking. Other rules of polite behavior apply for the same reasons. Your path through a society, no matter how much you disagree with it's basic principles, will probably be much easier if you learn and follow any (harmless) customs that society has.
-
Aah, Stepmania, I've just started using that. You've listed some of my own favorite songs, but I would have to add Exotic Ethnic, Matsuri Japan, Witch Doctor, and Theme from Enter the Dragon. And as said before, Captain Jack's stuff (Only You is just so happy-bouncy!)
AfroNova is an excellent song, isn't it? Can't wait to get home from work today, a friend of mine is supposed to come over to play -
Ah, but nobody's answered my longer post about hats! Will you take your hat off indoors in light of the reasoning I've given for doing so? @DavidOdden, are you still "offended by people who insist that hats should not be worn indoors, and consider the expression of such an opinion to be rude"? @Olex, you wondered "Why should I have to follow some made up rules that don't make sense, and the moment I don't follow that which is illogical to me be deemed as a social outcast and be thrown away?" Did my answer make sense?
* prodding for more debate... *
And no, I'm not being a devil's advocate. This is my very sincere position on why good manners should be a staple of the Objectivist in any society. I do hope I don't make myself unpopular by taking such a strong stance in favor of following social conventions...
-
I think engineers and related jobs require much more logic, since those people are dealing with relality directly (they solve real problems). And since this varies across all jobs, some jobs would indeed have more or less people agreeing/understanding Objectivism.
It may depend on when they found Objectivism. If introduced to it early enough, I could see many dedicated Objectivists taking philosophical, political, or educational careers to help spread the philosophy. If introduced after they have already found the things they enjoy doing however, i would expect more in engineering and science than in other areas.
-
Thanks for the welcomes!
@Olex: Absolutely playing on heavy, though not always passing... I'll usually pass 8 foot songs. Best video game in existence (dare to disagree at your own peril!)
I love Captain Jack's songs, though the 3rd Mix is my favorite. It sounds like you play... what mix do you like?Unfortunately, those journal entries were written after my introduction to Objectivism, so they show nothing about my state of mind before that. I switched what, about 10 months ago now? Something like that? Glad you found them interesting, though. I enjoy writing essays like that, where no one can argue with me until after my point is stated fully
For my state of mind before Objectivism, think of a bookworm band geek girl who can't seem to do what her parents want her to, who had no idea what she herself wanted to do, and who was often depressed as a result, not to mention yelled at most of her life because she kept 'failing' until she had very little self-esteem, taking refuge in some unhealthy habits that only served to spiral her down further. Think Catherine Halsey, though I didn't have it as bad as she did. Wheee! Down the slippery slope we slide!
Now, though, I'm a bookworm (former) band geek woman who doesn't give a shit what her parents want her to do, happy with her life as it stands even though she's left one college with no idea as of yet what she'll do in the fall, with (most of) those unhealthy habits gone and forgotten and with more self-esteem than she's ever had. Found the staircase and starting to climb. It's been a long one, tho.
Dang. I was thinking about starting a thread asking people what changes Objectivism has brought into their life. Yours would be an awesome reply. I think this entitles you to start that thread.The problem with me starting it is that people might not want to reply because the first post could trump those that may follow. Well, maybe not, idk... But if someone else starts it, I'll certainly post a fuller version of my story.
Socialism Vs. Capitalism
in Debates
Posted
If you move to NH rather than MA, that was a voluntary choice. You might not be entirely happy about paying property taxes, but it's part of the deal of living in NH. If you don't want property taxes, you can move to place that doesn't have them. So yes, it's voluntary.
Will the drunk men let you get out of the car if you so choose at any point? If so, and you don't take that chance, you've let them rape you. If you're allowed to leave the place where you are, and you don't, staying is a voluntary choice, and the laws of that area are part of that choice. It might always be the lesser of two evils, but it's still a choice.