themadkat
-
Posts
714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by themadkat
-
-
Is anyone watching ABC's "Earth 2100"? It's currently showing and only 35 or so minutes into it, I have to say that it's the biggest bunch of crap I've seen in a long time.
The show is an incredibly alarmist look at how our civilization will have collapsed by 2100 if we don't seriously cut back our current living standard. They are showing the fictional life of an imaginary woman born today and how all hell breaks loose over the next several decades. They are illustrating this woman’s story by showing an unending parade of enviro-freaks talking about global warming, food shortages, energy shortages, plagues, massive storms, floods, etc….. all caused by mankind using the incandescent light bulb and driving Hummers. They just showed a scene where Las Vegas is suffering from water shortages because evil capitalist companies running de-salination plants decided to cut off all water supplies. Now there is a riot as people from Mexico stream across the border and the police gun them down. This thing makes Gore's movie look like a conservative, low key assessment of how the planet has a really bright future.
Apparently ABC is now in the business of shilling for Obama's carbon tax. This is grotesque and beyond belief. There hasn't been a single voice of sanity on the show so far.
Yeah, we have it on right now. It all seems incredibly speculative.
-
My two nominees for Dagny Taggart would have to be Jennifer Beals and Jessica Biel. Similar names, vastly different in appearance and acting ability. When I think of Dagny, I always find myself visualizing one of these two women. Jennifer Beals has a very appealing intensity, one that parallels the character in question. I haven't seen enough of Jessica Biel's dramatic work to make an assessment. Physically, she's spot-on.
I suggest Summer Glau for Cheryl Taggart. If anyone doesn't know who she is, she was River in the incredible show Serenity and now has a major role on Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. For some bizarre reason I'd love to see Renee O' Connor as Lillian Rearden even though I know her as sweet, spunky Gabrielle - I have this feeling that ROC could pull off sinister and frivolous just perfectly.
How about Ioan Grufudd (or however you spell it) for Francisco? And because I'm such a Hugh Jackman fangirl I have to make a plug for him, perhaps as Cuffy Meigs, or perhaps Ellis Wyatt if we want to put him on the side of the angels.
-
May I butt in here. This has got to be one of the longest-running threads I've seen! I haven't read all of it,so I'm sorry if I duplicate anyone.
Can anyone tell me any further detail on this recent Gallup Poll (in which the pro-lifers have inched ahead of the pro-choicers, to the tune of 51%).
My questions: a. What proportion of that 51% are male? b. What proportion of that 51% are religious, or in any way believe in a human having a soul?
I will wager that the answers in both cases, are the MAJORITY.
You may be wrong on the first count. From what I understand it is actually men who are more likely to be pro-choice than pro-life by a slim margin. But most men are not nearly as vocal about it on the pro-choice side because they recognize, correctly, that it's not THEIR choice. Most pro-life people I know are actually women. Also I think men are more likely than women to be "agnostic" on the issue since, again, they're not the ones who think about that choice.
I'm just now coming out of the time in my life, I believe, where the ability to make that call would have been the most crucial to me. If I were to become pregnant now or in the future I would most likely elect to carry to term, but that was certainly not the case 3 or 4 years ago.
-
I am fairly sure I suffered from narcissistic personality disorder during my teenage years, so I will speak from my experience. Narcissism enables a victim to cope with low self esteem by way of conceited thoughts and behaviors. The less confidence a narcissist has in his own person, the more he will try to assert his tentative superiority over others. This condition is related to other self aggrandizing personality disorders such as sociopathy and borderline personality disorder.
This kind of characterization of Ayn Rand's "anti-social" characters doesn't really fit, because all of her characters have extraordinary self-esteem.
This differs slightly from my understanding of narcissism. I thought that narcissistic personality disorder was simply a near-total focus on oneself and one's personality to the exclusion of nearly anything or anyone else (i.e. it's a focus issue), but that it in no way required high self-esteem or even the faking of it - someone could be constantly self-deprecating and still narcissistic.
It really doesn't sound like you had narcissistic personality disorder, it sounds like you were just an insecure teenager who decided to wildly overcompensate.
-
Do they somehow get by solely via peer mimicry and tribalism while being in perpetual terror of the inconceivable?
Yes. They also make it a point to never, never take ideas seriously.
-
I didn't say there was a super free society then. I said that if there were a super free society today, I wouldn't mind it taking over America, because we are headed toward dictatorship now. The Indians were in a comparable situation.
The Indians were primitive and barbaric and the West brought to them a far, far more advanced civilization, which propelled them to much greater heights. That is an awesomely good thing. It's a massive improvement. Europeans at their worst were as bad as anyone, but at their best they were far and away the best.
If not for the West, today the Indians would still be living as savages.
This may be part of the disagreement in perspective, then. To your point, Thales, if someone were to invade America today, regardless of who it is or what their motives are, I would fight them to the death, taking up a rifle on a rooftop if I had to. This is my home and I intend to protect it from any foreign invader, regardless of how "well-intentioned" they are. I suspect many other people, in many nations around the world, would and do make this choice as well. Now, in an extreme dictatorship I might question that logic, but in any country with even a modicum of freedom I do not think it is irrational to repel a military invader at the risk of your own death.
-
I recently finished my first year of a Construction Science and Management degree, and along with getting more and more into O'ism, I already know that I'd like to pursue a Master's in business or economics.
I haven't quite started a list of schools, but just from my own knowledge of schools in my immediate area of Toronto, the education here is of the Keynesian variety. What I would like to find is a school mostly or completely dedicated to pure Capitalism, but I'm unsure if any such school would even exist in Canada.
So I'm posting this here before I start my own search to ask if anyone can point me in the right direction or knows of any capitalist professors in Canada. I have a vague guess that any real such school would be in Alberta (Calgary or Edmonton).
Thanks!
I don't know if it would suit your needs, but check out Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. They are pretty highly regarded. Plus I like to give a plug for my (undergrad) alma-mater.
-
I am told that of late it has gotten more religiously oriented. Does anyone out there have more insight into that?
From what I understand, it is very troop/location dependent.
-
Emotional Intelligence IS NOT Intelligence itself. I've read that women of the classical kind of intelligence actually have trouble having orgasms. I really don't like that the article confuses being socially comfortable and being able to understand abstract reasoning.
Heh...well, at least I don't have THAT problem. My IQ is just shy of 190 and thirty seconds or less is not unusual for me, if ya know what I mean. I'm really glad I'm not a guy or I'd be the worst lover EVER. Luckily women just keep goin.
-
Just my two cents worth as a mixed-blood Cherokee.
To build on what Maximus said, the problem I have with both Rand and Bowden's arguments on this matter is that they are historically, i.e. factually, incorrect with regards to how Native Americans lived. Especially east of the Mississippi, there were many sedentary and agricultural tribes even AFTER they were decimated by disease, and to suggest that all tribes were like the nomadic tribes of the Great Plains hunting bison from horseback is simply not true. Even west of the Mississippi, many of the tribes on the Pacific Coast had sedentary societies based around aquatic and marine foraging, and in the desert Southwest numerous permanent settlements were built, sometimes right into the cliffside. Many still exist today, vacant of course.
I think what this argument needs, in general, is a healthy reexamination of the facts and how people on both sides of the conflicts, both native and European, actually lived and what they actually did. It is not as simple as it is often made out to be on this board. That said, if it were my country, there would be no modern-day reservations and although tribes could own land together if they chose to, for example by forming a corporation, they would be encouraged to integrate with society generally as they'd be a lot better off that way. Preservation of a way of life is not guaranteed to anybody.
One other thing - to suggest that Native Americans had no technology or advanced knowledge is ludicrous. Putting the clearly advanced Mayan and Aztec civilizations aside as I believe we're focusing more on tribes found in the modern-day US and Canada, there were many things Native Americans knew that Europeans didn't that could have benefited Europeans if they'd listened. An excellent example is the way the Great Plains were settled and over-farmed, eventually culminating in the monumentally disastrous Dust Bowl (to be fair, government encouragement of rapid settling also caused the Dust Bowl). The tribes knew that the late 1800s, when everyone was rapidly gobbling up the Plains, were a period of above-average rainfall and had warned that the land was, in general, more arid than was currently the case. This turned out to be true and in reality that area is not nearly as good for farming as previously believed. Countless homesteaders were probably foreclosed on and ruined as a result.
-
At its core, business means meeting other people's needs. A businessperson must be keenly aware of what their client base wants and needs. In fact, that is the primary consideration of someone who wants to be successful in business as a field. Your own evaluation of your product is second to the client's; it's not your opinion that matters here!
That means a businessperson must be primarily concerned with what others want, and place their values above his/her own in terms of what is produced. Isn't that the definition of a second-hander? Or is a limited amount of second-handedness appropriate so long as it is used to achieve your own personal values?
You've got it all wrong. Business does not mean meeting other people's needs. Business is about producing a value and then trading that value. You first need to 1) identify what, in your judgment, is a value; 2) create that value, and then lastly 3) convince others that they ought to trade for your value because it would benefit them. None of this is second-handed and businesses that depend solely on the whims and irrational behavior of others are destined only for short-term success. Creating real value means creating OBJECTIVE value, and because these values are objective enough other rational individuals should value them enough to trade with you. Depending on how optional the value you create is (food vs. a Bentley), your market will be larger or smaller, but you as a businessman need to take that into consideration.
-
Mmh... I guess I first have to figure out clearly what I want to achieve.
Still, science feels like giving out candy having an applauding audience with no clue what you're doing...
I think there are some deeper issues involved, my mind-set is usually to go my own way, not wanting to be part of a larger movement/institution. Maybe I need some more work experience and finish some own projects before I really can say that I do want or do not want to join the science community.
@themadkat:
Reading your profile I wonder:
Do you see the environment of an academic career as an opportunity or as a necessary evil (i.e. you get paid for what you want to do and you have easy access to laboratories, books etc.)?
I ask because in computer science all I need is a computer
I think I see it as an opportunity because I'm not sure what better way there would be to pursue my career goals. Unlike you (based on what you mentioned in my reply to DavidOdden), I do not view my career as a way to make money to achieve my "real" goals. My career is my "real" goal, or at least one of the major ones in my life. I can't make do with just a computer, like you can. I need funding, which is nearly impossible to get outside of an institutional association. I need at least a little bit of lab space, although that's not so much of a major concern unless I start doing some genetics as part of my larger project. I need equipment which, again, easier to get through an institution. But I think the major difference between me and you with regards to wanting to be in academia is that teaching is important to me and I look forward to it, whereas I don't see you mention teaching at all. Certainly if you don't want to teach or want to actively avoid it then academia may not be the best choice, but I am all about the teaching.
As for politics and jumping through hoops, there is no guarantee of any more freedom for yourself in a corporation than in academia. I don't know how it works in Germany, but here in the States I have a lot of programmer friends who constantly complain to me how nothing they create while working for a given company belongs to them - in fact, sometimes what they create AFTER they quit belongs to their company, for a period of a few years even. Having worked in a corporation myself for a couple years, a tech company actually, I was constantly fighting with management both over the treatment of my employees (I was a supervisor) and the quality of the product, which I bent over backwards to maintain in the face of their poor planning and corner-cutting. They kept wanting to avoid taking the time to make the product right the first time, not understanding that when the customer gets their product and it's wrong, we just have to do it again anyway, or even if a team further down the line at the company gets it and says they can't work with it because it doesn't meet quality. I kept trying to explain how much time and money is wasted by redoing things, sometimes more than once, and although they claimed to understand it they would never actually allow us to take the time to make it right on the first try, or would allow other departments to undo some of our work. It was maddening. At least the pay was good.
-
I am going to be a lifelong academic and I consider it both a rational and moral choice.
-
The "dissenters" appear to be an elite bunch. Good for them.
Some are and some aren't. There were four, and one was recently made to leave the ranks of the trustees. While he was undoubtedly railroaded, I'm not sure I'm sad to see him go as he was probably the least effective dissenter based on some of his other views.
My favorite "dissenter" trustee is undoubtedly TJ Rodgers '70, who made his fortune in Silicon Valley. I don't suppose it will be long before Dartmouth finds a way to silence him as well.
-
So what of pedophilia then? If you cannot choose what you are sexually attracted to, then how can you be judged as immoral if you "happen" to be a pedophile.
Let's say someone is sexually attracted to children but has not acted upon their attraction. Is this person immoral?
Also, if this person is in a constant war against their nature, or at least at war against something they had no choice over, isn't that immoral, as they are acting contrary to their nature?
I am not insinuating pedophilia is moral, but it seems like the same argument that is being used to justify homosexuality (It's out of your control), applies to pedophilia as well.
I cannot see how a pedophile who never touches a child in his life can be considered immoral. He certainly isn't a rights-violator. I think someone in that sorry state of affairs is sick and needs help, unless he does decide to act on his desires in which case then he needs to go to the big house PDQ. To a certain degree I think pedophilia is unchosen, but so are many other personality traits that may make you more prone to committing a crime, for example a violent temper or the absence of empathy (I mean a pathological absence as with sociopaths or psychopaths, where one can't feel empathy even where appropriate or if they wanted to). Nonetheless, whether it is chosen or not is really irrelevant to the act of child rape, which is always a choice and should always be punished when it occurs.
I'm really not sure how pedophilia has anything to do with homo/bisexuality, as the latter concerns the activities of two consenting adults whereas the former by definition does not, hence its immorality. But just to clarify my position (which may or may not be the position of other posters here), I don't think sexual orientation is a choice but even if it is, and this is important, even if homosexuality is a choice I would consider it a moral choice to make, so long as your lover represents your highest values and being with him brings you happiness and satisfaction that you won't find with anyone else.
That said, I could try as hard as I possibly can not to find men or the male anatomy attractive tomorrow, and I guarantee you I'm still gonna find them hot.
-
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/21/barack-ob...=rss_popstories
This article is about Clifford Asness and his willingness to speak out against what is going on, in favor of capitalism, despite the chilling effect on the business community in general. The author, Peter Robinson, is one of the "dissenting", alumni-nominated trustees of my alma mater Dartmouth College, for anyone who has been following the Dartmouth governance controversy.
-
You'll still have to start at the beginning if you want her to understand. Have you talked to her about Objectivism?
Cursorily. She's really not interested. Like I said, she's a mystic.
-
Your mother sounds like she is still in a cocoon, like mine, not philosophically aware. Such people are shock full of unconsciously held, inherited and malformed ideas.
It's pointless to debate such things as rights, freedom, force etc. with them since they have no standard to refer to. In a way it's as if a professor of theoretical physics tried to argue with a 5-year old about cutting edge mathematical problems. The potential in the latter might be there someday - if they so choose - but before and unless that's the case, it is of no use trying to get anywhere with them.
Nah, my mom's pretty sophisticated actually. It's more that she's a full-out mystic, which is strange for such an intelligent woman who has spent so much of her life using her rational mind in academic and professional pursuits - I think it's a reaction to the stress and pain she perceives as associated with a life of achievement and striving and the deep-seated fear that ultimately she just can't do it. Mental illness and lack of coping are common refrains in my mom's mind and I think this is her way of coping, by becoming "spiritual" and selectively evading certain facts. I don't like it but she is my mother and I love her a lot, and we have a great relationship now whereas before we didn't used to, so my mom is valuable enough to me that while it hurts me that she is a mystic, I won't value her less because of it.
-
Rather than Bush administration, from the article it seems that some general somewhere needs to be reprimanded.
It wasn't a general, it was Donald Rumsfeld. And most likely what he was doing by putting those quotes on there was trying to manipulate Bush himself through his belief, to help convince the president of his own righteousness.
-
I can understand that you don't want to aggravate your relationship with your mother with a discussion about why this is wrong, but you could (IMO) ask her how it would be even possible for the weak to restrain the strong. Wouldn't that, by definition, reverse the roles and thus the morality?
No, I know what she meant. She meant those who would be "weaker" on a one-on-one level get together and gang up on the "stronger" folks with regulation and law and such.
-
This may not exactly be on topic, but this makes me think of a conversation I had on the phone with my mom a few weeks ago, and I forget how we got to talking about politics but we did, and I said something about how it was nothing more than pure unvarnished force how the government was trying to right the economy by taking from some and giving to others, and she didn't disagree with me, and I asked her how it is that she can possibly defend the many enslaving the few, and she said pretty much direct quote that it was OK as long as it was the weak restraining the strong. It was at that point that we both decided it was better that we just not talk about it, after I started to respond that anyone who thought they would get in my way or hold me down was in for a nasty surprise. I was a little angry at my mom, especially considering that she has me as a daughter, but mostly I was just very, very sad because I know there are some ways in which we'll never understand each other.
-
Certainly. Why do you ask?
Because it seems to me a reasonable analogue for how people would generally feel about those they greatly admire in the sex they are not attracted to, in general. Just to pick on JASKN, since he's actively posting to this thread, if the most amazing incredible woman in the world that shared all his values became his friend, he would probably feel the same way about her as you would feel about your best guy pal - there's just no switch that can be flipped to make those thoughts sexual, even if for some reason he WANTED them to be.
I mean, shoot, I hear straight people dating the opposite sex have this problem all the time. "Oh, he's so nice, and I really like him, but there's just no CHEMISTRY, so we'll only be friends." I know chemistry is a metaphor for sexual spark and connection but sometimes I take it literally, as well - people's scent can be attractive, for instance.
As for me, the reasons I'm attracted to men are pretty much all physical. Although I have a very broad tolerance for male looks and what I find attractive, you could say if I had a type it could be described as "scruffy" or "rugged" - think Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. There's not some concept of "maleness" about the person that I'm after, so much as it's just the male body itself that gets me going. I'm not looking for a "male personality", if there even is such a thing, except insofar as I seem to get along better with men than women especially in casual everyday interaction. Attraction is a physical thing. The relationship is built on much more than that, of course, but the "spark" is all physical.
-
CapFo, I have a question for you...do you believe it's possible to meet a wonderful person of the sex you are most attracted to who you deeply care for and admire and who shares many if not most of your values, and not be sexually attracted to them? I am not talking about someone with a horrible deformity here...I mean a basically normal looking guy or girl who you are capable of being fantastically good friends with.
-
As I explained in conversation with Jackethan a few days ago, I think that not only is there a continuum of sexual preferences (i.e. straight to bisexual to gay) but also a continuum of flexibility in preference, i.e. are you willing to be "heteroflexible" or do you lose wood at the first mention of men touching? You might think bisexual people would be the most flexible but that might not be necessarily the case - for example, if a bisexual person is attracted only to androgynous people, male or female, but not to others, I would not consider them very flexible.
Intelligent women enjoy sex more than 'bimbos'
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted
I've seen their bread trucks around town. I laugh every time.