Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by themadkat

  1. I liked this movie too for precisely this reason: I saw it as offering people the choice between simply not dying (remaining a vampire) and actually living (returning to human status). I don't see the peak oil connection. Would never have thought of that in a million years after having seen this movie. I also like it as a metaphor for how a society which depends on parasitism will inevitably end in the death of all its members.
  2. This post actually seems to reinforce Krattle's and bluecherry's points more than anything. And since when are skinny guys closet bisexuals? That makes no sense. For the record, I'm a woman, and yes, I do like muscles. On me. Do I appreciate a muscular guy? Sure, within limits (I don't like ridiculous amounts of definition). Is my guy a beanpole? Quite the contrary. But don't forget that a woman may be just as interested as a man in BEING strong rather than having to find that strength in someone else. The converse seems a bit secondhanded to me, but then again the usual conception
  3. My only comment is I don't see why being ISTJ precludes having principles. Much as we NT types may enjoy glorifying ourselves, I don't think it does anyone any good to prejudice ourselves against particular types. I think that any of the 16 types can be intelligent and rational, even if some may be more inclined to do it easily than others.
  4. I wouldn't be so hasty to walk away from learning about Objectivism just over this. I think the point of disagreement between you and Jake/David is exactly who is initiating the aggression, and that's the point you need to focus on. That said, not everyone on this board necessarily agrees with ARI's position on foreign policy. I am one of those who sometimes does not and I have gotten into this argument with the hawks on the board before. But I still urge you to look carefully into the question of who exactly initiates the aggression because I agree with the others that it is the crucial
  5. The Pack were robbed. On the last play where Rodgers was stripped there was a totally blatant facemask that was not called and would have made it 15 yards and a Packer first down. Prior to that, there was a blatant helmet-to-helmet hit on Rodgers after he threw the ball, I think it might have been on the play where Jennings broke free but the ball was a little ahead of him. Green Bay should have won.
  6. Based on his other posts on the board, I think you are correct. The guy comes off much more like a conservative than an Objectivist.
  7. Sure. Now bear with me since I haven't read the book in awhile. Taking the letters one at a time, he strikes me as an I because he is not someone who likes to deal with large numbers of people at once, or draw energy and strength from the external as opposed to the internal world. He prefers a few people to be close to him, such as Dagny and the man we later find out is John Galt, which is typically the mark of an I. The S designation, which I'm going to assume is the one you most want explained, I chose because I think that while Eddie is clearly an intelligent man, he is more comfortable
  8. Eddie Willers strikes me as an ISTJ, as well as Miss Ives (Rearden's secretary who, as I recall, was invited to come to Galt's Gulch).
  9. The Pats? With that defense? I think not. AFC I'm thinking Indy, and NFC probably the Vikes though I'd much prefer to see the Pack.
  10. I echo the sentiment that not all of these are bad. For example, human trafficking is a heinous rights violation and should be punished to a severe degree.
  11. Sadly, I frequently see shades of this in the writings of my own field. That is why those who work in it are so concerned with who is "in" or "out" and WHO said something instead of the correct focus on WHAT they said.
  12. As I recall, Roark had hair the color of orange-peel and Galt had copper-colored hair. Roark was also supposed to be somewhat unattractive.
  13. All else aside, I take issue with this point. I've heard it before and I'm not buying it. I never had an extensive history before I became intimate with my partner (unless you count all the hours I spent alone in my room, but I assume we're not going to factor that in ) yet we did not have an initial period of awkwardness or fumbling or anything like that. It worked, and worked well, because we love each other and were willing to pick up on each other's cues and ask about things. He didn't have much more experience than I did and he certainly hadn't had experience with me, which is anot
  14. No direct hits but apparently I bit two bullets.
  15. The flip side of a woman's unequivocal right to an abortion is a man's unequivocal right not to be forced into parenthood. Child support laws are immoral, basically, unless there is some kind of prior contractual agreement between the parties (read marriage).
  16. It's not taught well at all. Sometimes it's not even introduced until high school or later. But some of us in the field are working to fix that. In 10 years or so give to me your children and I will set 'em up with their bio education just fine, muahahaha...
  17. I had it. It sucked but I certainly never felt at any point like I was about to die. Taking Tamiflu I felt like a human being again after about three days. I still have some lingering tiredness but that could just be the weather/my back pain.
  18. It sounds like the question is really coming down to whether it is OK to sleep with someone for whom you have a lot of affection but know you have no future with. Then it comes down to what you are comfortable with, I think. For example, take a college student. What if you love your boyfriend but are fairly sure that life circumstances are going to take you your separate ways at graduation? Should you then never have been with him? I think that's a bit silly. I do think it's probably not so kosher to know beforehand that you're not going to have much to do with someone after a week and
  19. You're really making it sound like possession of ovaries and a uterus is somehow a liability. What exactly is bad about being female again? Are YOU a unique and special individual in spite of your possession of male anatomy?
  20. Many here on this forum would argue that there is no consistent way to bind all the different feminisms together and that it is an hence anti-concept. I'm not willing to go down that road just yet but I would point out that the tension between third-wave (postcolonial, etc.) and more traditional feminism shows just how deep the divide really is between various schools. Some kind of "other", a fundamentally different entity from a man on some level. In other words, the way a woman experiences and expresses personhood is completely incommensurate with (and of course inferior to) the wa
  21. Even if those figures are accurate (and I have no reason to doubt that they are), you have to be careful with something like average life expectancy. Remember that high infant mortality is usually responsible for those figures being low, both in the past and in the modern era. Back in paleolithic times if you made it to age 1 you were extremely fortunate, and if you made it to age 5 you were probably good to go for a long time. Adulthood wasn't nearly as dangerous as early childhood and people did regularly live into their 40s and 50s.
  22. I think that's understood, Quo. I've certainly never heard anything along those lines out of you. DollarD, this is like the fifth time I've seen you stick your foot in your mouth on this board...what are you like 13?
  23. I am very much active in the academic world (granted not in women's studies, but active nonetheless). That is NOT the most common definition used. I consider myself a feminist but only in the sense that feminism is, as I like to say, "the radical notion that women are people too". And my definition is far, far in the minority. Feminists as a whole in academia often agree on very little. They may agree that gender is a social construction, but so do many people who are not academic feminists or even feminists at all. And they often differ on what role, if any, biology plays in determi
  24. Did the green-eyed monster evolve before we did? Fair play: Monkeys share our sense of injustice • 11 November 2009 by Frans de Waal • Magazine issue 2734. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. • For similar stories, visit the The Big Idea and Human Evolution Topic Guides It's not fair! Gimme that food (Image: Pete Oxford/Minden Pictures/FLPA) HOW often have you seen rich people take to the streets, shouting that they're earning too much? No, I thought not. Protesters are typically blue-collar workers yelling that the minimum wage has to go up, or that their jobs shouldn't go overseas
  • Create New...