Ragnar69

I don't mean to defend Judeo-Christian philosophy by any means, but it is quite possible that mistranslations have screwed us over in regards to the two aforementioned commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not murder" are too vastly different things. Killing someone in defense of life or property is not murder. If the commandment is indeed "Thou shalt not murder," then killing for a valid reason would be perfectly moral under Judeo-Christian law. RE: the "neighbor" commandment - I'm not a linguist at all, but it would make sense that the original word that translates down to "neighbor" meant something much more. It could have meant a member of the same tribe, which today would be akin to defending one's free country from tyranny. The original intent might have been not to put one's "neighbor" above oneself, but to stand with your neighbors against common enemies for the good of each individual in the tribe, where not loving one's neighbor could mean death at the hands of an enemy. The Judeo-Christian religion has some seriously fucked up shit in it, but I think these two commandments read in this way are actually quite moral by Objectivist standards.

A temporary desire is not the same as doing what you love. I might place more value on a loved one than on a temporary desire, but would likely place the most value on doing what I love.

Right, plus I'm not addicted. I smoke one or two a day at the most, and when I run out I don't buy more right away. I usually buy them when I go out drinking, which is very rare at this point in my life. A pack could last me a month or more. I like the immediate sensation a smoke gives me, and studies have shown that nicotine does enhance concentration. Except for a brief period in college (more than 10 years ago), I have never felt like I needed a cigarette. I think of it the same way as eating fatty foods, which I also rarely do. It's a risk I'm willing to take for the temporary pleasure.

If someone seems okay with my being atheist, or are not okay with it and want to discuss it, I try to tell them about Objectivism. Also, I smoke American Spirit cigarettes. That always seemed somehow Objectivist to me. I used to have that "My philosophy, in essence..." quote on the refrigerator when I was living with my parents, but it disappeared one day. I think my mom threw it away.

I think this is the perfect time for this movie. The federal government is starting to take direct control of Wall Street and the press, two of the key components in Rand's list of what had to happen for her to consider the U.S. fallen to dictatorship. I think all that is left is for one party rule to be established. Hopefully Obama will have screwed things up so bad by the time a possible second term comes around that he will be booted before he has a chance to make that happen. If this movie does a good job of showing what happens when the federal govt takes complete control of business, then I think we can mark it as a success. Rather than try to get in all of the book or explain all of the philosophy, I think nailing this one key component will be sufficient. There should also be plenty of allegory to the current administration, maybe going so far as casting the president as a major character, and a villain, which I believe wasn't the case in the book.

It might be worth stating that Rand's actual views on sex were that it is only moral within a romantic relationship. The above post is one of the few in this thread that actually follows Objectivism in this regard. Rand was very much against casual sex. In regards to the OP, I suppose it is up to you to define what constitutes sexual encounters. A lap dance in a public room is one thing, but a "lap dance" where you pay a little extra in the champagne room is another thing entirely. How far the girls go is usually entirely up to them. It is not uncommon to get oral sex at a strip club, and I take it you would have a big problem with that.

So have you discussed your visitation rights to the club, yet, if any? I know if I was dating a stripper I'd want to be there all the time. Plus, you can say if you're giving lap dances to other guys, then I can get them from other women

I think there is something to be said for having sex just for the sake of having sex. When I hit 21 or 22 I was still a virgin, so I decided to look into online escorts because I was having trouble finding anyone I wanted to start a relationship with. I figured that if I did meet someone, I didn't want to be all awkward and have no idea what I was doing at that age. I think a 22-year-old that doesn't have a clue what they are doing would be a turnoff to most prospective mates the same age. I ended up having a few encounters with different escorts. The first time was awful, but it got better. I satisfied my curiosity fairly quickly and felt like I was learning how to please a woman from professionals, which is the way I went about it. I didn't actually have a relationship until years later, but I felt like my earlier experimentation had prepared me for it. I don't regret it in the slightest, as I think it has made me a better lover.

Like John Galt? still looking forward to the movie... I think they are both. Can you explain why you think House and Bones are not rational?

I always thought this song was an excellent response to the "someday you'll understand" position: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/creedence+cle...s_20034342.html "First thing I remember was askin' papa, "Why?", For there were many things I didn't know. And Daddy always smiled; took me by the hand, Sayin', "Someday you'll understand." Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mother's son You better learn it fast; you better learn it young, 'Cause, "Someday" Never Comes."

The stripping aside, if you love her hang in there. I went through the same thing with my fiance. She moved back home after living with me for 10 months (hence the living in different states) because she didn't like NY and because she wanted some space from me. I said I would move in with her in Ohio if she wanted to stay together. After about a month apart she realized she really missed me and now can't wait until I move there.

I would not have a problem with it. But then, both my fiance and I are bisexual and kind of sexually adventurous. We haven't done anything with other people yet, but plan to do it together. If there is no emotional or intellectual attachment to the sexual activity, and it is done with the consent of both people in the relationship, then I don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. That is, I have no problem with sex simply for the sake of physical pleasure (and this might be outside the thinking of strict Objectivism, but oh well). It is only if a sexual encounter outside the relationship became more than just sex that I would take issue with it. In my own situation, my finace is actually living in a different state from me right now (I am going to be moving there when I can find a job). If she told me she wanted to go out and try to pick someone up just to have sex because she was horny all the time, I would have no problem with it. However, she has a male friend that she sees on a fairly regular basis that she thought she might want to have sex with, and I said absolutely not. AFAIK, she respected my wishes on that.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. It's only a matter of time.

This is about what I was thinking when I was reading through this thread. I fail to understand how simply making Jim Crow laws illegal wouldn't have been sufficient. They went from one extreme to the other, which really makes no sense. They went from it being illegal for blacks and whites to be served at the same lunch counter, to it being illegal for them NOT to be served at the same lunch counter. Why not just return the freedom to choose to the business owner, as it should be?

I read the first book after seeing the first season or two (don't remember how much was actually aired on network TV, I don't have cable), and I was mildly disappointed. I think the acting on the show is pretty bad other than Dexter, and Harry in flashbacks, so I was looking forward to reading it. It turns out the author actually wrote the police force to be completely incompetent idiots, which lacks realism in my mind. Say what you want about police detectives, but they can't ALL be that stupid. So the acting on the show is probably not the fault of the actors, as I imagine it is very difficult trying to bring life to a paper thin character. I suppose the police are intentionally portrayed as two-dimensional caricatures, but it makes it a little frustrating to watch at times.

I've always liked Nicolas Cage - Raising Arizona, Leaving Las Vegas, The Rock, Con Air, Faceoff, City of Angels, National Treasure were all very good movies. Leaving Las Vegas, The Rock and Con Air are among my favorites. I always thought he did a good job portraying what an objectivist might do in so-called lifeboat situations. "Put... the bunny... back... in the box." "Sorry boss, but there's only two men I trust. One of them's me. The other's not you." Now I'm looking forward to Kickass, as well as the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

Avatar/Dune: http://clunkline.com/?p=2455 I happened to like Avatar despite the anti-tech message, and the rather simple plot, and the stupid villains. I agree that it is a failed allegory for what's going on on this planet because it is not mysticism or hysteria that drives the Navi's belief but an actual biological organism. I believe it was Sigourney Weaver's charatcer who said the Tree of Life thing has more neural connections that the human brain, which would mean the entire planet is basically sentient. Our planet is not sentient. Plus, they have the right to live in their tree even though someone else really really wants what is buried underneath it. It is their home, and it was stated in the movie that families and children live there. No one has the right to kick another sentient being out of their home if they legally own it. Since it is their planet, I would say the Navi legally own their tree. The invaders certainly don't have any rights to it.

I always ate an eighth of an ounce or less. I don't think I would find a higher dose than that very useful.

It's not that I saw differently. I am not a very visual tripper in that I don't have extreme hallucinations. Mild distortions come with the experience, but these are merely a momentary amusement. The real benefit for me was the way I saw, not what I saw. Like I said, I believe psychedelics allow you to focus very intently on one thing at a time. So when I was at the museum, for example, I could stand in front of a painting I liked and stare at the detail for a half hour without being self-conscious or concerned about missing other exhibits. I followed every brushstroke, looked at every color. Of course, if art is your passion you can do this without chemical enhancement, I'm just saying for me it was a help. While you might have to focus on more things than when racing, you do not have to focus on them all at once. You can take your time and see each individual aspect, then look at the work again and see how each aspect relates to the whole. With a concert, well, you can miss stuff when you are under the influence of one drug or another. But a raucous crowd could also cause you to miss stuff. The main benefit at a concert for me was that I seemed able to tune out the crowd more and focus more on the band. Some might find the distractions in your head more of a hindrance than the distractions outside your head, but that wasn't the case for me. At a classical concert psychedlics would probably be redundant as the crowd does not generally distract you. I've been to classical concerts and I couldn't see tripping for one. I used to be something of an aspiring writer, and using psychedelics has never actually helped me write better. I think even Stephen King, something of a legendary tripper as well as a legendary writer, said that he never wrote anything he could publish while tripping.

I guess no one on here is interested in this anymore. I would like to answer, anyway. I think psychedelics can be useful to the rational mind in certain circumstances. I have a friend who used to say that using pot is like shining a sign in your mind that constantly flashes "PAY ATTENTION!" The drawback is that you can really only focus on one thing. So driving a Formula 1 racecar would probably not be a good activity to engage in while you're stoned. You might be having so much fun screaming down the straightaway that you forget to notice the hairpin turn coming up at you at 200 miles per hour. Likewise, taking the CPA exam stoned would probably not work either, as there are too many things you need to concentrate on to do that effectively. However, using psychedelics could be an effective way to enjoy a poetry reading, go to a museum, attend a concert, or see a 3-D movie. I had never seen the detail of a Monet painting as well as when I was tripping on mushrooms, and my favorite concert of all time was a Violent Femmes one I saw while tripping. Your normal everyday concerns about what other people are doing, the screaming baby in the third row at the movie, am I blocking anyone from seeing the painting, did I remember to call so-and-so, all slip away when you are on psychedlics and you can just focus on what it is you came to focus on. I have pretty much stopped taking drugs at this point in my life, but only because I haven't had the opportunity and have more financial responsibilities now than I did in college. When my life is more settled, I could see using them again. The last time I smoked weed was in the summer when I used to attend a friend's open mic night sometimes. I saw some shows sober and some high, and also performed a couple of times after smoking, and it was simply much more enjoyable when I smoked. I haven't been to the show since the summer for the same reasons I haven't smoked - lack of time and finances.

Has it aired on TV yet or just the web?

?Did you just start a game of questions

I disagree. I do some of my most serious pondering when I'm stoned.

Ambition is what Ebenezer Scrooge was when he was young. He earned his money through productive achievement, and was generally happy with his life and his wealth. Greed is Ebenezer Scrooge when he got older. Technically, he might have still been earning his money, but I don't think he was as productive, he did not get his employees to be as efficient as they could be because he treated them badly, and he did not enjoy his wealth. He made money just to make money, without even benefitting himself.

I know very little Latin. Does this mean "I am, therefore I think"? If so, I love it.