volco

The inquisition was indeed founded to discern whether the previously converted muslim population had converted back, and the Jews who had lived in Iberia since pre Roman times were finally abandoning their ways if not abandoning the Peninsula. In Spain's case religion served as the politically correct way of the time to drive out the mixed ethnicity population (including Jews). Cristiano Viejo meant Old Christian that never converted or had lived in the mountains so it also implied that the Old Christian never had the chance to marry or otherwise mix blood with the Moors. In order to somehow retain evidence of their status the ex-noble ladies of Christian Goth and Suevian descent protected from the sun during the Muslim Sarrasin occupation until their blueish veins could be seen through their melanin-deprived pale skin; giving origin to the term of "blue blood". The forced-converted (conversos) from al-Andalus to Spain were also called cristianos nuevos and they were rightfully regarded with suspicion as many of them continued practicing Judaism (marranos) in their homes, and many fled first to Portugal and then to the Americas. There was a time, in Spanish America, that the settlers and criollos would say "I've never met a Portuguese who wasn't a Jew". Unlike Islam which has a dhimmi system to recognize and live along other religions (but not atheists), Christianity and the Reconquista project demanded the homogenization of the population for the birth of the first Absolute Monarchy of Europe. The discovery and swift colonization of the Americas, the "Conquista" seemed like a good omen of the success of then Reconquista and unification under one monarch, Maybe, like in 16c Spain, in the Bible Belt religion was (and maybe is) used as thin veiled racism against those who are not obviously apparent of another race. I seem to remember another Tennessee Williams play, Baby Doll in which the Sicilian character (the hero, and btw a righteous entrepreneur) has olive skin and doesn't quiet fit in the white and black Southern society of the 40s or 50s. Two Tennessee Williams mentions in one thread. wow. If it were just ethnicity then yes, it comes down as you said it to tribal vs territorial morality. However I'm just so sure you'll be able to corroborate and be completely sure of how irrational people can be in your small town once you move to a different (maybe not necessarily less irrational) environment. You'll be able to compare how thinly veiled sadism can be a common entertainment for incredibly bored, normal, adults, and religion, genetics, political parties, sport teams and the famous PTA meetings, can do just as well as symbols and vehicles for that cheap popular way of getting off. "Young people wonder how the adult world can be so boring. The secret is that it is not boring to adults because they have learnt to enjoy simple things like covert malice at one another's expense. This is why they talk so much about the value of human understanding and sympathy. It has a certain rarity value in their world." -CG It surely is rare, isn't it?

Great job transforming her eye and mouth expression (doesn't seem depressed to me, rather matured, or thinking instead of posing) - not to mention your good skills, . Actually great job in transforming a girl into a beautiful woman. I don't like the way the cloth folds render her breast boxy, do you?

as Ayn Rand said on the topic, repeatedly, one can hold something to be valid "until there is further proof found"

The following is certainly not the official Objectivist stand, but my own. How will you treat this question, metaphysically or psychologically? your tastes or the truth? Maybe Objectivism resolved that riddle but not explicitly. Even if by empirical evidence we could be certain about the sun rising tomorrow, the sun is still too close and well understood. We are ignorant of that which exceeds our scale, which may or may not be infinite. the distant past, the distant future, the very small and the very large (Richard Dawkins compares this to viewing from a burka). When thinking/speculating at a scale that far exceeds what humanity will ever get to know, we our confronted by uncertainty. For all conceivable practical purposes (and Objectivism demands the application of a principle to reality) absolute certainty is applicable. For Objectivism to be rational it demands to be fallible even if 99% correct. It's it's neither authoritarian (dogmatic/infallible) or mystic (relativistic/ applying uncertainty to the scale humans can indeed control). Objectivism rightly asserts that the universe is knowable, and it is to a certain extend that is good enough. But if we call this "contextual certainty", we must acknowledge that it plays a (rightful) psychological role - that of focusing on the knowable instead of literally going crazy with the unknowable (unless properly channeled).

haha So do I!!! if only would you be able to tell me the name (or korean characters are fine) of the designer or architect of the wooden park bench I find it very familiar Thanks

so am I done but just to clarify.I know "my" aspects of Ayn Rand have preoccupied other older more respected minds before mine. obviously this is not the place to further discuss those aspects for the time being.

further comparisons... on other-ism, altruism - Celia Green http://celiagreen.blogspot.com/2010/08/sacrifices-of-sadism-are-greater.html

barbaa streissand effect, i knew it was going to happen, but the thread was already long, that was the point. how blatant superstition is taken so seriously (to the point of debunking the ghost of Ayn Rand (!)) but the more slightly controversial aspects of the real person, Ayn Rand, are treated somewhat as taboo.

It is an interesting topic and as James said it overlaps into many many threads. But Ayn Rand was far from homosexual so we can leave all the gay threads aside for a bit and consider the question of an intellectual woman during the rise of Feminism who had some subtle masculine traits of herself and wrote a lot about gender roles. I consider most striking seeing Dagny in three different capacities, as an executive single and then with Rearden, as a housewife (more specifically as Galt's housekeeper), and then somewhat to our imagination, in all her proper femininity, under her hero and then rescuing her hero. Her take on masculinity and femininity somewhat resembles that of other non feminist woman intellectuals such as to the left, Camille Paglia (ouch!) to the right, Celia Green Her take on gender roles seems to me consistent every other area, most obviously ethics; neither abuse or allow to be abused. There is some sort of compensating force in play. (ex, her masculine traits in a heterosexual woman).

shadenfreude much or am I being funny in some other way so much for a benevolent and curious sense of life thumbs up!

Yes, that was my point, but add to that, the fact that someone took the trouble to move the thread, not to "overcoming superstition", or "deciding whether the OP's a troll" or at the very least the already existing section of "Psychology"; but instead to US Domestic Policy. I tremble to think that strange apparitions influence U.S. Domestic Policy. Maybe there IS a ghost here- not of the metaphysical variety. re/brian; not joking, just the fact that "she" was the same user who felt somehow prosecuted for being slavic in a white town... and for being bullied at 13. It's just disturbing that ghostbusting is taken this seriously while my threads are pretty much ignored.

Why would you want to undertake such a task? That obligatory part said; I'd recommend actually evaluating whether you gain any value by trying to turn "socialists" into "capitalists" as if it were an evangelical mission. If you do try and distill whether that value comes from practicing your oratory or arguments, or like to litigate, or just enjoy getting together. For tools you could play them the Stossel Show on repeat; he's mastered the art of non being confrontational with confrontational ideas. genius really. Our very own Glenn B'ck

re/point, the inordinate amount of replies threads like this get

and you find it pure chance "dreamspirit" chose that day to publish a year old dumb article ?

it was Halloween!!! for the love of Galt!

and as Sophia pointed out the USSR and its sphere of influence, acted as the World's mineral reserves. Just as oil revenues might have delayed USSR's collapse, the USA is at this very moment using its abundant "well backed*" currency to delay its. The difference is that a World reserve currency is something infinitely more abstract than oil or uranium. If successful in delaying it, a collapse can be postponed indefinitely while American inventions continue to fuel grow. In that I still see more parallels with the British than with the Soviet. Here where Kurzweil enters the play. If the military holds out they might just be able to provide more time for the geeks to program further strictly American inventions that do not require manufacture (such as google, craigstlist, airbnb, FB). *well backed not by gold or oil but by a worldwide military power - much like Britain. But as the USAF spreads thinner and thinner I wonder if they can really protect worldwide peace and trade. The British thought so at the beginning of the century and then Singapore and Malacca were snatched just like that. Australia would have been as well but for the Americans. And they didn't even learn as 35 years later they don't bother two station more than a land garrison in the Falklands.

Maybe you should try unifying your Koryo threads into the one thread. It can be titled "Why North Korea is Worse Korea" or "How can Stalinism still be seen in these days" or just "The People's Democratic Republic in all its glory" - imagination runs wild.

how can any of these be of relevance as to reply and move the thread, very accurately, to Domestic US?! this collective reaction says much, sadly.

individualism calls for distribution and as.EC pointed out internet does that better than anything. more concretely to the point, dual citizenship, citizenship, incorporation, or flag of convenience provided by micronations and sovereign nations that remain outside big blocks. examples are all over the caribean panama uruguay switzerland. even inside blocks galt's gulch is found through technicisms within the USA the marianas abd puerto rico or even delaware are good examples. within the EU Luxemburg and Andorra, within China as far as I know, Macau and Hong Kong serve this function - I suppose accompanied by Singapore and non sovereign chinese settlements in SE Asia. if you want to speculate about undersea domes you should update yourself in that the technology and cost feasability are already there. take a look at the threads at the seasteading insititute forum.

I don't know, no one does, but we'll have to find out eventually to continue growing as humans. In my experience when I am conscious of my consciousness I feel like I am thinking about my consciousness just as I would be thinking about a memory. In those cases (when looking inside, to a memory or the fact that I have an inside, or that I exist -in such a form) I feel just as conscious as if I were reading a text or image from the outside. I never really understood what people meant by meditation (maybe to my loss). I've always thought of it as either purposeful relaxation or hyperfocus. I also notice that my mind work differently (better) when I walk and think silently for long enough until it seems that thoughts are blanked out, but as you pointed out, that never actually happens during consciousness. What I call and recall as blanking out, or actually relaxing, is just being conscious of my blood circulating, my heart pumping, my lungs drawing air to feed my aching muscles (as this only works after walking for more than 2 hours). Eventually that allows for some conscious digestion of thoughts. If successful i wouldn't be choosing what to think about but rather performing something similar to what I do while dreaming. I ignore how hygienic is to be conscious of the process.

You are misunderstanding the quote because it's brief. It's extracted from a short, concise, easily available book Celia Green wrote "The Human Evasion", not her only book, but certainly her most "popular" one. I "introduced" her to this board a few months ago after seeing some explicit and implicit overlap with Ayn Rand's writings. Just reading some of her free online material really facilitates understanding the quote on sanity. I advice reading as much as possible from her, but not that much is needed to understand her; so, by "think about what he doesn't understand" -yet, she means studying, exploring and eventually creating. all of it requires an interest in that which is not already understood, or more to the point, that which is not already handled to us from other people. "pathologically interested in other people" roughly means "altruist" as Ayn Rand defined it. Either in serving or controlling other people, being preoccupied more with society than with oneself. Ayn Rand falls squarely into the category of those who don't find it useless but unavoidable and exciting to be interested in things she didn't yet understand (which led to her understanding of some, as I'm sure her curiosity surpassed her lifespan) Someone who invents a new motor or designs good buildings under his own value judgments is too, more fearless of the unknown than someone who rehashes designs in a permanent quest to satisfy his social sphere. ---- After the terminology or choice of words is properly understood, the point raised remains; and it doesn't need to be replied to or "concluded" hastily. What is the nature of mental health and how does it relate to exceptional individuals - such as the heroes portrayed by Ayn Rand, and even Ayn Rand herself?

I've thought the guy was thinking wishfully too - for a couple of years now. My first argument was that the Soviet Union was more of an experiment than the USA which is organic; and my persisting argument is that Americans simply don't behave like Russians! More recently I began to understand what he really means by superpower collapse. A superpower needs actual energy to maintain an overseas presence. Drawing parallels to the Soviet Union is quiet laughable indeed, but also fastidious when reconsidered until it makes some sense. Just consider that the British Empire collapsed like a house of cards in only three decades and right after its apex. Britain didn't cease to exist, parliament continued functioning, but they did experienced a brief period of collapse, particularly worse after than during the war that buried them with their victory. This also applies to the other 6 European countries that formally controlled all the World but the Americas, Ethiopia, China, Siam and Japan.

Sometimes I have nightmares about a non too distant future where Atlas Shrugged is printed with that page missing. It happens routinely to other extremely popular books like one mentioned in this very page.

not in the light of very recent events in North Africa You are asking different questions, and I somehow believe you're talking about the Middle East and that this thread should be in the current events section. also define "free" in the above context. 1)The dictator is responsible for his captive population because that's what comes with power, in all cases, responsibility. The tyrant might have acquired his power with force, or fraud, or intelligence in manipulating a flawed system, but by the same faculty of ruling a people, he is therefore responsible for them. No one can have it both ways 2) However rights*, unlike power and responsibility, are intrinsic to each individual and non transferable. A dictator, or any government, can violate one's rights, deny one's rights, but surely can't transfer one's rights. Can't "confiscate" them only smash them. Therefore when one captive population is pitched against one another, or attacked by a foreign "free" force, the dictator can only serve as a scapegoat for the invading "free" force or pitcher. This does not make the dictator any less guilty, it only makes the attacking force more guilty. 3) If you cared to break down your questions into real life situations from Afghanistan to Libya maybe different answers would arise. I wonder. / (*if one is to "believe" in individual rights thus rendering them existent, instead of distorting them into legislature to somehow legitimize arbitrary entitlements as in the case of most "free countries". That still doesn't mean the "free" countries aren't freer than dictatorships) 4) By not fleeing the ones who can. The ones who are not able to chose to escape are outside the realm of morality. If we were talking about Libya I'd say that rather than fleeing people immigrated in search of good paying jobs to the prosperous oil rich dictatorship. Those are particularly guilty of not trying harder to migrate to freer countries. At this point I'm not sure if I'm being ironic or not because I do NOT know about the fabulous prospects of a central african emigrant. But we are not talking about Libya.

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, were all average to deficient in many aspects of their lives during much of their lives, and now are considered.. well... the first two are popularly considered just that, demi gods. what is exactly what you yearn to see?