themadkat

My college had "distributive requirements", where you had to take courses from a certain area but not any specific choice from that area (ie pick a history course but it doesn't have to be History 2). I thought this worked better. It's a shame you're actually mandated to take certain classes. My best advice is to find what excites you as best you can and try to find value in the subject matter, even if you don't like the way it's being taught. It's too bad the message you're getting is that your achievements are worthy of shame. I had a friend in a class one time where the professor literally described as a "soulless failure" anyone who wanted to make money and live comfortably. I'm betting that unlike my friend in this class she did not grow up in abject poverty with few material comforts. She had some gall calling my friend a soulless failure.

Actually, to be perfectly accurate, the author's description of narcissism is not actually how the mental health profession classifies narcissism. I think she is using the popular definition for narcissism and passing it off as the medical definition. In actual narcissism, in the pathology, it's not necessary for the person to really like themselves. Self-obsession is sufficient. It's possible for them to even have low self-esteem.

Hm, I don't know. I'm at a sort of in-between phase in my relationship in terms of where we stand. We've been together for nearly seven years total, but only have lived together and seen each other all the time for about four months now. We seem to have a mix of both sides of what you're describing. On the one hand, we do have that total and complete comfort with each other, having known each other so long. I think my guy has something very close to my absolute trust, and I know I have his. We do delight in each other's company and the little things are definitely magnified. When I come home from work and there's dinner on the table, I love him for it so much and I'm so thankful, every time, even though he does it every night. I'm excited to see him, I can't wait until he gets home even though it'll only be an hour or so, but I'm not totally obsessed with him every second like I was when we first got together. It's not that the intensity has diminished, it's just not constant like it used to be. But I wouldn't really say that's a bad thing. It's like the flame isn't burning as high or as brightly, but it glows hotter. We both know what we have is a lifetime bond if we let it be. He's pledged to follow me anywhere and I've pledged to always do well by him when he does. And, of course, there's conflict as there always is, but our fights are never lasting. No one's going to be angry two days later, or often even five minutes later. We bitch and moan and poke at each other, but it's all superficial jabbing. At base we know nothing can touch what we have, because we protect it and take care of each other. I concur with an above poster who says this kind of love is not necessary for a happy, complete life. At this point I like to consider it a life-affirming value of which I refuse to allow myself to be deprived. I can live without my fellow, but why would I want to? I don't, and I won't. Oh yes, and I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but I'm really not seeing any metaphysical differences between men and women. Particular and contingent differences, perhaps, but metaphysical? I'm not buying it. My guy and I are way more alike than we are different, and our personality differences are hardly attributable to our genders.

I think we should give death row prisoners the choice of participating in dangerous medical experiments in exchange for life without parole. That way, it puts it back in the hands of the prisoners. They may end up dying anyway, but if some good can come of them before they do, it would be more worthwhile than simply executing them.

I'm just not seeing the big deal. It's not as if I gave them money, or manned their phone banks, or really did anything at all to help the Republican Party as such. In fact, if anything I went in and voted for the candidate the party establishment probably finds the most distasteful. I would say what I did was as nearly perfect an example of subverting party process while still acting completely within its rules that I can think of. As for the fact that I did, indeed, join the Republican party for all of four minutes, I hinted already that it made me feel like I needed to scrub myself. But my personal loathing for the Republican party is not a sufficient logical reason to avoid doing what I did. It was a feeling to be overcome in the service of what I knew I wanted to do, nothing more. Imagine this: there is a decadent house down the street which belongs to a crook, and you know all the property inside is stolen. This crook has no choice but to invite you to his house party due to some rule. So you get to essentially crash the party, eat all his food and break all his shiny stuff, all while he sits and watches helplessly. You could say that you still had to go to the crook's house, still had to talk with him and be in his space, but if you get the chance to wreck all his ill-gotten gains, isn't it worth it? I sometimes feel like this idea of "sanction" gets misunderstood and overextended in Objectivist discussions. One more thing, and please don't take this the wrong way because it is not intended as an insult, but why are you going to contact someone else to decide what you're going to do for the election? Even though Dr. Peikoff is a brilliant man, he is not going to take action for you and he is not responsible for what you do. You need to use your own best judgment of the issue and then take ownership of the results. If you are unclear on what the issues are, just think about it. Think about what's most important to you and what you value. You don't need to follow someone else's lead. I've never understood this presumption that all Objectivists should or would think and act in exactly the same way. This is the supremely individualistic philosophy, is it not?

Yes, that is exactly what it means. I walked into the polling place an independent, asked for a Republican ballot, had an R next to my name for about 4 minutes (barf), then promptly asked the nice lady at the door to make me unaffiliated again, which she did. I love New Hampshire.

This has probably been answered before, but what about proofs which do not require direct empirical observation to be true? Instead, for example, mathematical proofs? I may be misunderstanding but it seems to me that if you can deduce certain laws from the empty set (which you can) that not all proofs have an empirical root. I guess we could call them features of logic or rules about the structure of logic rather than facts about reality. But I'm still confused. Thoughts?

I already voted. I love the way New Hampshire does primaries: unaffiliated voters can vote in either primary (but just one obviously), and then unregister for that party right after (which I did). Ron Paul 08, sirs.

Anybody have a PS3 and play Rock Band? I'd love to find some peeps to play online with. I can do some Expert songs on guitar/bass and can do Expert vocals if I know the song (if I don't, forget it buddy). I can do drums on Hard. Any takers?

Yes, it is a VERY 80's movie. And the popcorn is at the end. Val Kilmer is probably my favorite character in that movie, either him or the hyperkinetic girl that doesn't sleep.

Anyone seen this movie? It was one of my fraternity's "house movies" because we're all a bunch of uber-geeks. I think there's a lot of great stuff in Real Genius. Thoughts, comments, etc.?

I know this is not a Frank Miller thread, but I wanted to plug Frank Miller's (and Chris Claremont's) interpretation of Wolverine in the 1983 miniseries as excellent for many of the same reasons. It's more or less about Wolverine having to make a rational choice about which part of his nature he is going to pursue and live by. He also has to fight for his values and for what is morally right. The biggest danger he faces is the loss of identity, the loss of self. The only quibble I have about that book is I didn't always like the way Miller drew Wolverine's face. I often preferred other portrayals such as those by Dave Cockrum.

I am somewhat familiar with the type of argument which Klein probably wants to make. I was going to say at first that I'd read another one of her books, and then I realized we were talking about Naomi Klein, not Naomi Wolf, whose book is the one I actually read. Nevertheless, the song sounds the same. I think one of the objections people who want to attack modern "consumerism" raise is that corporations are marketing to people on a primarily irrational or emotional basis, and most consumers do make purchases on this basis, rather than making a purchase because it is life-enhancing. To a large degree I believe there to be some truth in this statement. The main difference between me and writers such as Klein is I do not believe the answer is government intervention, but rather helping people on both sides of the transaction to be (and want to be) more rational. I would add the caveat that I do believe it is the proper function of government to enforce laws against deceptive advertising practice, as that constitutes fraud and undercuts the whole concept of a voluntary trade of value for value. By this I don't mean really nebulous stuff like "this ad shows tall people, so this product will make me tall" as that is simply an example of the viewer/consumer being a moron. I mean things like saying "This product is absolutely guaranteed to make you grow three inches" when clearly the product does not do that. Kat

Donkey Kong Country? What a fantastic game! Unlike the second and third installments of that series I STILL have never found all the secrets from the first game. Even though the second and third games have "more", the first one is definitely the hardest to complete. You have great taste in games.

I'm somewhat old-school in that I played and loved Castlevania IV for Super Nintendo. It had great game mechanics and was truly challenging. I was even Simon Belmont for Halloween one year.

I'm writing a novel, myself. I started it in 01 and it really should have been finished by now, but it's almost done. I've already planned the next novel in the series and can't wait to get started on it (like any good fantasy, it's bound to turn into a series LOL) It's an adventure tale about people who have no proper place in society, so they create their own place by default as they stumble through various quests that generally, they didn't seek out themselves, but fall into their laps in one way or another. They're accidental heroes in the sense that they weren't trying to go out on a crusade or anything, but they're purposeful heroes in the sense that once they see what needs to be done, they follow it through to the end and nothing can stop them. Several issues are raised in the novel including individuality, tyranny vs. freedom, being one apart from "the herd", honor, and loyalty. It's primarily a character-driven novel, so the main characters are as follows: Celesta, an aspiring sorceress who ran away from her merchant father and preordained life path (marriage, respectability, etc). Not yet polished but with great amounts of potential. Although she has been on her own for awhile, she is still naive and sensitive in the beginning. She is a kind, caring individual but is also very driven and ambitious. She does not have a strong sense of herself and often seeks validation and support from her best friends. It is not obvious early on but she eventually shows a power-hungry side. Berild, a large, burly warrior who has been working as a mercenary. It is clear he does not always care to be working for others, and he often turns down jobs he finds objectionable. However it takes him a while to truly find his own way. In addition to his physical prowess in battle he is also a brilliant strategist and of the main characters has the best ability to lead others. Much more thoughtful than most would assume. He is also a romantic, but remains cautious because he has been disappointed often in the past, having found that truly worthy individuals are a rarity. Kat, a consummate loner who has been living in the woods with little human contact for several years. She is incredibly distrustful of others as she has seen much of the worst in people. It becomes apparent that she is a genius, and she is also incredibly willful and headstrong. Although she towers intellectually she is often an emotional child, at least in the beginning. She is an extremely proficient fighter and when her life is threatened she will go into a ferocious rage which can overpower nearly any adversary. She has a strong code of honor and will protect those she sees as unfairly victimized. As time goes by she comes to understand the value social interaction can offer her, and has a powerful capacity for attachment, but finds there is always a price for such things.

Good on ya, mate.

Well, it's not just the Jewish faith, it's all the Judeo-Christian faiths and many faiths from other traditions as well. What it all comes down to is trying to have some control over things which humans typically have no control (like whether it will rain, or whether this volcano will bury your town). That is why all the first objects of worship were something important in nature, like the sun. My personal feeling is that if God was real and he was the tempermental, arbitrary, hissy-fit prone being he's portrayed as in books such as the Bible, I would choose not to worship him and would do whatever I could to resist him.

Just a heads-up, I think this is a gross generalization and not true for even a simple majority of women. Though it may occasionally be fun to dominate or be dominated in the bedroom , that is a far cry from being dominated in a relationship. There may be some such women, but frankly, if you are an intelligent and passionate individual they are not worth your time. A mature relationship involves give-and-take from both sides, and if a woman already knows what she wants from a relationship, she may not appreciate you "dominating" the direction. Totally not trying to bite your head off here. A little helpful advice from a woman is all. And as far as being short, yes, tall guys are hot. Short guys can also be hot. I know a fellow who is probably only around 5'8". He is completely cut and a fantastic athlete, especially in grappling-related martial arts. Hot? You bet. Kat

I'm probably the only one on the board who has read Tamora Pierce, but I highly recommend her especially for about 12+. She writes mostly four-part series that take place in a realm called Tortall which bears obvious similarities to Medieval/Renaissance Europe. They are fantasy books, with magic and monsters and such, but they also delve into the way the societies work and how things are done on a more day-to-day basis. Each four-part series centers on a different heroine, and you basically watch her grow up. All of the books have female lead characters and thus I think they have a special appeal for girls, but I don't see why they wouldn't be great for boys as well. The first heroine to get a series is Alanna the Lioness, a girl who switches places with her twin brother Thom to become a knight instead of a lady (never fear, poor Thom is not left to cross-dress as well. He goes to become a powerful sorcerer, as he had no desire to be a knight and would probably have been terrible at it). She is tough and fiery and makes her own way. She is also passionately dedicated to fighting for justice. She will not tolerate evil even when it would plainly be easier for her to go along with it. The next heroine is Daine, who can communicate with and later shapeshift into animals. She's a little more subdued than Alanna but equally heroic and dedicated. Instead of becoming a knight she goes a little more the naturalist/scientist route - fighting is not her primary mission, just something she keeps getting dragged into. Then there is Kel, who is the first girl to go off to become a knight openly as a girl, instead of pretending to be a boy like Alanna did. Kel is also very cool. There is one more series that was just two books that I haven't read, about Alanna's daughter, which I would probably enjoy if I got around to reading them. I would recommend any of these books to a kid who likes fantasy, but they should probably be 12 or 13 to really get it.

I can sympathize with this. I'll probably be getting a reduction someday, for health reasons more than anything. I'm not even sure I'd put a reduction in the category of "plastic surgery" necessarily, because it's not about appearance so much as allowing yourself to actually stand up straight. If I wasn't a muscly athlete-type I think I'd be bent in half by the damn things. This raises an interesting question too...what determines whether something is plastic surgery? Is the same surgery in a different category based on the reason for it? That seems a bit strange to me. My mom had a "nose job" under the premise of removing inflamed ducts and fixing a deviated septum. But the doc still made her nose smaller for cosmetic reasons. I guess that's a question that would be more relevant to an insurance adjuster than a philosopher.

This is my list (worst to best): Abigail Slug Ivan Sinbad Gregory I like this exercise, it provides a lot of food for thought, but because there are some important (to my reasoning, anyway) details left out, I made some assumptions, which I will include with my reasoning... Abby is by far the worst. She does not respect others nor command respect for herself. Assuming that she and Gregory had an intense, long-term romance, she committed an act of grievous wrong against Gregory. She should have placed the value of their continued relationship, based upon mutual exclusive commitment to each other, above the short-term gain of seeing him. If they were really in it for the long haul, she had time to find solutions beyond just Sinbad's offer. She could have had a little initiative. Instead, she took the easy way out, basically the moral equivalent of killing the goose that laid the golden egg to get out all the gold at once. And then, when confronted with the consequences of her poor judgment, she chose to blame and hide behind others. People seem to have it in for Slug a lot worse than I do. He is still bad, but I think it depends on some things. Was he friends with Abby, did he genuinely care for her (granted she is reprehensible, but it could be an honest mistake on his part)? If so, and he had reason to believe SHE was the wronged party (because who knows what lies she told him), he may have beaten Gregory as equal punishment for the emotional torture he supposedly caused her. Still wrong? Yup. But to me, accepting that he may be making judgments based on incorrect information cuts him some slack and puts him behind Abby. I'm not as willing to cut Ivan slack as some seem to be for one reason. It says he is Abby's friend. If he is Abby's friend than choosing not to get involved implies that he is not being a good friend. Remember that friendship is an entirely voluntary obligation. Choosing not to get involved is not the action of a friend. At the very least, he could have talked with her and helped her think her situation through, which would require nothing but him taking some time. That's not exactly a huge expense. If he doesn't care about her or her problems, he should do the honest thing and tell her they are not friends. Refusing to help her but expecting her to maintain a friendship with him is expecting the unearned. Sinbad didn't really do anything wrong, as he had no obligation to Abby and she was free to refuse his offer. His biggest mistake was confusing a lesser value (getting a quick piece) for a greater one (doing some work and winning the affection of a good person). Of course, this assumes that he is merely ignorant in not valuing himself enough. If he is deliberately setting out to destroy values (i.e. wouldn't even enjoy sleeping with her but just wants the satisfaction of knowing he destroyed a romance), then he should be higher than Ivan and maybe even Slug on the list. I hold Gregory blameless. Kat I find this sentiment strange. I don't think either has more responsibility for crossing the river than the other. And how do we know he didn't have something in the works, if Abby had just been a little patient? Even if he didn't, I think it's ridiculous to put all the onus of reaching out to her on him just because he's got a schlong. Then again, I don't really agree with Rand's conception of gender roles, so maybe that's the issue. Hero-worship has never played any role in my romantic desires and in fact I find it a little childish. Kat

It doesn't beg the question. You asked why the government is involved. A factual answer, based on the here and now and the laws as they are currently written, is that because steroids are illegal to use or possess the government has to intervene if an institution, ie a baseball league, is shown to be condoning illegal practices. Should they be illegal? No, I don't think so. People, athletes or no, should be able to put pretty much whatever they want into themselves, or else they can't really be said to own their own bodies. I think the issue really comes down to this. I'm an athlete myself, and I appreciate what kind of work and training goes into a performance like that. For me personally, drugs of any kind would spoil that. So I would choose not to watch or otherwise patronize a league where I knew that the rules permitted use of performance-enhancing drugs. I would prefer to watch and buy the merchandise from a league where those drugs are forbidden. It's like in bodybuilding where they have "natural" leagues. It may or may not be a good term to describe the league but basically it just means no steroids. I don't really care whether there would be leagues where steroids and other drugs were allowed or not. I wouldn't be buying.

I know this is probably not where you wanted to go with this, but one short answer is that at present most of these drugs, especially steroids and HGH, are illegal to use or even possess. That fact by itself is enough justification for government involvement.

Well, I've read all of Ms. Rand's major works of fiction. I can't really pick a favorite, as I like them all for different reasons. I should probably reread AS at this point as I read it first and then went backwards through her fiction. I now think it's actually better to read AS after TF. But at any rate...I've only gone a bit into her nonfiction. At least glanced through it. I can't say that I have a great knowledge of her nuances in the nonfiction, but I'd hope that I do have a solid understanding of all her basic tenets and why. I have a philosophy background so it does make that sort of thing a bit easier to come into.Though I wouldn't call myself Objectivist per se, I am a big fan of Ms. Rand and have been heavily influenced by her in many respects. I certainly try to live a life of honesty and integrity, and my aspirations definitely go into the realm of the heroic I won't compromise my morals. The reason I want to be a scientist is because I love truth and I want to find out as much as possible about how reality works.I also write fiction, and I'd like to think that my novels would be Objectivist-friendly. If I ever finish one, I'll surely make it known! ty, sN! Twas good to meet you in chat last night.