JRoberts

I would like to get this clarified. When I heard this I was quite confused...it didn't seem like the Jackson that I knew.

I agree...come on man, that was pretty tasteless.

Interestingly enough-I just now read this post and must say that I know Jackson Crawford in person. I did not get the email-but then again I am not subscribed to his list. However, I can tell you that it has caused quite a stir here in the "Objectivist" circle at the local University (which is actually a blend of TOCers, CATOers, Libertarians, and a few 'ARI' people). If you are still having problems Mr. Speicher, I would be more than happy to speak with him and get you removed.

Casablanca. One of the only movies I can watch over, and over, and over, and over-and each time I grow to love it more, and each time I discover/learn something new. Amazing movie that I advise everybody to watch.

The reason that I asked was because my knowledge of Satanism is very limited. Without any other context, I could read that statement in many different ways. If he is speaking of Hedonistic morality (which is what I think he is indeed implying), then my response would be highly different than if he were speaking of something else (which he could be). It is very difficult to jump the gap from ethics to metaphysics in the terms that you described. Is this essay for school? Is the thesis up to you? If so, I would go for something much easier and more specific. Hopping around the different branches I find more in the nature of a long treatise than a critical essay.

According to the Anthropological research that I have read, a Homonid of this type should have been capable of verbal communication. I will post some lengthy descriptions on why when I can find my book about it. Also though, if you read the articles, it is hinted that they MADE (not used-big difference) tools, and that they hunted in groups (likely hypothesis) to capture larger animals. These are bits of evidence to suggest some form of communication. My only problem with this is their brain size. It is a scientific fact that the size of the brain has something to do with the ability of advanced forms of language. Their brain was much smaller than humans-which is why I'm interested in seeing what they discover.

I want to ask you one question in response to this: What is the point of history? Are you sure about that? Mind providing some details?

I wouldn't mind helping-but based upon the quote you gave, I couldn't give a fair enough response . Would you mind posting what you have written so far? Or if not, PMing it to me?

For your own sake, I would advise that you re-read your post and note the cynical tone. You are more intent on making Jefferson look evil than you are on learning the truth.

Where in the world did this come from? I would advise you to re-read what Free Capitalist said, as well as at least giving him the courtesy to quote what you disagree with and state the reasons why.

Jefferson was from the South. Freeing his slaves meant a WORSE life for the slaves, and possible capture and enslavement by somebody much, much crueler than Jefferson. Many slaves did not want to be 'free' because they enjoyed a very healthy, free life with their owners. Be careful of jumping in and attacking people like this. Especially when you have very little facts, and are around people (myself) who highly admire Jefferson.

Is it? And-do you?

I've observed this post on a few different computers and the images are not showing up. Just thought I'd let you know

Charles, I believe you are responding to someone else and not to me. I did not say What I did agree to about this was that a person going against their sexual identity would suffer psychological issues. My point rather was that, as long as a person acted in accordance with their identity, they could enter into a healthy relationship with the reciprocal identity, regardless of gender.

The story can be found on both National Geographic and Nature . This is a pretty interesting discovery-especially with the implications based upon how YOUNG it is in the evolution of humans-that it co-existed at the same time as Homo Sapiens. I'm excited .

Expanding upon Concerto of Atlantis- Morality comes from this world. Thus something that is practical is something that will work-in this world. Because Objectivism has a natural view on morality, morality obviously is practical because it is in accordance with nature. This is why the Dichotomy that Concerto of Atlantis spoke of exists in many people's philosophy-because their morality comes from god, or a higher source. This means that it isn't worldly, and thus "not practical".

I think you mean rather a new name? The foundations for a great holiday are already present. The Pagan/Roman Saturnalia actually was more than a week long celebration. December 25th was the Feast of Sol Invicta. This was a feast basically celebrating the fact that even in the darkest/coldest of times, the sun still existed and was on its way back to a stronger, healthier status. It was because of this that people feasted, danced, sang, gave gifts, etc. This is pretty much what we have today-albeit with Jesus added instead of Sol Invicta. I don't see the need for a new holiday-but rather a new name (if you so desire). Thankfully to many Americans, this IS the case. My thing however with Christmas is the name (Christ), and the decorations (nativity scenes for Jesus, etc.). I still celebrate and have a great time without Christ.

Did we deal with Nazi Germany much differently? Actually, the actions of the Dutch and the Swedes during this period are worth inspecting, especially people such as Gustavus Adolphus. England especially was in the process of amazing advancement in the fields of Representative Government. The treatment of the savages (Aztecs) was conducive to the nature of the savages (Aztecs).

Then you could celebrate Saturnalia instead of a silly Christian holiday with the name of their god in it

How was the Spanish treatment of the Aztecs any different than how the Aztecs treated themselves?

Unless you live in: 1.)The Conservative South 2.)The Zealot Bible-Belt 3.)Texas 4.)A combination of all of them (Me)

I can not admit something that I don't believe in. While I will say that most homosexual males I know in today's society are what you are describing-unhealthy individuals-I will not say that in a correct romantic relationship, a homosexual male would be this way. To state that a healthy male "conqueror" would desire an unhealthy male "conquered" is to deny the former male his health. In a healthy romance, both people would be healthy. It is my belief that physiological homosexuality also has to do with the balance of hormones within the body. There is evidence to indicate this. I am not denying genetics, but am rather saying that a multitude of physiological things could contribute. It would be traumatic for a "conqueror" to be conquered. This seems natural. However, a healthy "conqueror" would have no desire to be conquered. I have already responded to this above. However I will expand. I see it rather that a healthy "conqueror" (male or female) desires a healthy "conquered" (male or female). I believe that any variation goes into other realms instead of romantic sexuality. One who is healthy will seek another who is healthy. Thus I still fail to see why the gender of that other person matters.

I would like to thank you Godless Capitalist for providing this information. Now as to my other question-you speak of introspection. When I look inside myself-I see my sexual IDENTITY. I see that I am a dominant figure-a conqueror-who seeks a submissive-or a conquered. When I observe my biology, I see that I have testosterone, that adds to my 'manliness'. Thus, 'manly' seeks 'womanly', testosterone seeks estrogen, conqueror seeks conquered. While I see that for the most part this relates to male and female, I fail to understand why a male who, introspectively, sees himself as "conqueror" could not desire a male who, introspectively, sees himself as "conquered".

But of course-this was implied within my post. Rational men tend to make rational decisions based upon the information they have.

You might want to make a note that you'll have to register in order to read that