themadkat
-
Posts
714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by themadkat
-
-
I personally loved the movie, I saw it all as a stuggle between those who wish to be alive and Human, versus those who wish for death.
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.
-
Women like muscles. I like women. I also like lifting weights. It is as simple as that. I would not say that our culture is obsessed with muscle - though I will say that all the skinny guys claim not to be obsessed, a quarter of which are closet bisexuals, and their wives are all secretly obsessed. Every girl wants an alpha male - and muscular men wreak alpha. Law of nature bro...
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 of female sexuality in Oist circles comes off as secondhanded to me anyhow so maybe that is why.
-
Actually, I did disagree, thinking he was more intuitive than observant. But your argument about him being loyal to TT even after its spirit was dashed changed my mind a little. He behaved in a principled manner throughout the book, that I think is for sure, but he does fit more of a loyal guardian profile. It can be said that his principled thinking was in fact a reflection of his observance of Dagny (how his principles were really only hers, and he just observed that they seemed to work well for her and adopted them for himself).
I think ISTJ does really work for him. Though I'm still convinced the S versus N is a false dichotomy. He's really a pretty intuitive guy as well.
More thoughts? (I'm not through with AS, only just beginning Galt's speech, so please no spoilers).
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.
-
Thank You. After reading your comments i decided to stop learning more about objectivism. If it leads to acceptance of war initiation, then it is not for me.
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 point.
-
Cards/Packers: WOW!!! That was a real barn burner!!! Best game of the weekend and one of the most exciting games I've ever seen. Every time either team had the ball; TD!!! Neither team had a defense ... until the Cards needed it at the last second. I guess next week against the Saints will be a repeat but I wouldn't bet against the Cards. The Saints are playing their worst ball of the year right now and they will be rusty.
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.
-
Based on your statement, I assume that you're also against a woman's right to an abortion. Is that correct?
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.
-
I'm interested to hear your reasoning behind placing Eddie Willers under the ISTJ category.
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 focusing on his more immediate observations and things that are typically concrete rather than abstract. This is hardly to say that he is anti-conceptual. Obviously far from it. But he is not an abstract systems-type thinker. That's why he looks to Dagny for those types of answers. The T and the J I think are a little more obvious. Eddie is clearly more of a thinker than a feeler, and his desire for clear-cut boundaries, instructions, and standards all indicate a J preference.
Now, looking one letter at a time is all well and good, but I actually think the case is made better by looking at the type and subtype. By subtype I mean his being an SJ (perhaps another term like "grouping" would be more appropriate, I don't know). He fits the SJ mold pretty well, being a guy who is drawn to rock-solid institutions (like Taggart Transcontinental) and is not particularly comfortable with change. He is not out of place in the Guardian profile. In the end, you could argue that his absolute devotion to the institution of TT, long after its underlying meaning and heart were gone, was his undoing. And lastly, looking at the ISTJ "Inspector" profile, I think it fits Eddie to a T.
If you want to disagree at all, feel free, as I would be interested to hear another POV and maybe I will change my mind. Man, I feel like I'm in English class or somethin.
-
How to solve such a practical and ethical problem?
No social insurance, no fraud, no crime, no problem.
-
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).
-
I predict, tentatively, a Super Bowl between the Cardinals or Eagles in the NFC vs the Chargers or Pats in the AFC. I'd love to see the Cards beat the Patriots in Miami.
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.
-
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.
-
The parallel is that you will often find academics in the humanities (and soft sciences – see Climategate) “worshiping” what they study in the same way that monks and priests worship the Bible. And, almost universally, what they are studying is as open to interpretation and contradictory -- and therefore meaningless -- as the Bible. However, since only they can “understand” it, this makes them feel special in their little social clique. They, and only they, are the anointed few with the TRUTH!
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.
-
Paraphrase: "All the main characters are the same, blond with angular jaws. Quite Arian"
Let's see...
Dagny - brunette
Roark - Brunette (? - could be wrong I don't specifically recall)
Fransisco - brunette/South American (tall dark and handsome type)
Galt - Blond --- see I told you they were all blond!
What crap.
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.
-
3) It can give you valuable practice for great sex later on with a romantic partner
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 another thing to consider since people are very different.If casual sex and romantic sex are substantially different as you claim then how can the former really be practice for the latter? It sort of brings up a "Madonna/whore" dichotomy in my mind where you have "practice girls" so you can really please your wife some day. But seriously, what woman of self-esteem would ever consent to being a "practice girl"??? A good friend of mine was dating a guy of this mindset and once he figured out they weren't moving towards something serious, he began to treat her completely differently, just getting every bizarre kinky thing out of her he could for "practice" (since he was not experienced prior to dating her). My friend found this incredibly hurtful and resents the guy for it to this day, and I don't blame her (although I think she should have cut him loose sooner). In contrast, a friend of mine recently entered the relationship waters and it sounds to me like her partner has no complaints about her acumen (quite the opposite in fact).
The feelings you have for someone allow you to tune into them and figure out what they need - more importantly it puts you in a place where you can tune into yourself and get what YOU need (we are egoists here after all). You don't need to have a bunch of meaningless "practice".
-
Zero direct hits and bit zero bullets. Yay?
No direct hits but apparently I bit two bullets.
-
So, the chick can always get out of her mistake because she can always have an abortion, but the guy must be forced by law to pay for the mistake if the women goes through with it? We'll since the embryo has no rights. I will just slip something into her drink to kill my sperm cell. Do I not have a right to the sperm cell? I just happened to misplace it inside her vagina. It was never my intention to get her pregnant. It would be like if I let me dog off his leash and he ran into my neighbors yard and they kept him, but still made me buy dog food.
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).
-
So, even though about 80% think evolution should be taught, it apparently isn't being taught well (if we're to believe that only 40% believe it).
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... -
Personally, it seems like it is another crisis to generate more power in individual governments if not a global government.
I visit hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies each day that I work, and there seems to be "excitement", but this isn't a melt down. I don't have the vaccination myself. I personally don't know anyone that has ever got the virus. Heard about a friend of someone I know, but that's it. I can't confirm that they had a culture done that says they had H1N1 either versus some other virus on top of that.
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.
-
As Jen and SNerd pointed out, I'm not suggesting any sort of prioritisation of casual sex over long term relationships, neither am I suggesting sex with people you don't know.
Sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, discovering your partner is a maniac, etc. are all risks associated with *all* sex. You may know somebody for 5 years, then have a casual relationship, yet I doubt you would object to a sexual relationship between a romantic couple who knew each other for just 1 year. The two aren't even exclusive.
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 then still sleep with them, but this is rarely knowledge that is certain unless you plan it out that way. On the other hand, it seems excessive to me to posit that someone has to be a life-partner candidate before you sleep with them. I think love or great affection and fondness is enough, even if it's not forever.
-
Your grouping Miss Rand in the "women" collective is even more absurd. Miss Rand was a unique and special individual irrespective of her genital organs over which she had no control of. Also I find a lot of irrational collectivist angst against what I said, which goes to show how some people seem to value the collective (men, women, mobs, whatever) over the individual.
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?
-
Granted I do live and study in Sweden and may therefor have had a radically different set of referance when it comes to gender studies, but I find that the definition used in my previous post is quite frankly the only consistent argument that binds the different schools of feminism together and I do believe it capsulates the essance of all feminism since it abolishes the idea of metaphysical gender roles.
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.
What do the people that oppose your position claim that women are?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 way a man does.
You start out by saying that feminist don't agree on much, which is true, and then goes on to generalizing them all as collectivists. Admittedly most feminists are collectivists, but that does not mean a liberal position is incompatible with a feminist point of view. There is a reason for all the prefixes such as marxist feminism, liberal feminism, post-colonial feminism, queer and so on.You're going to have to clarify what you mean by liberal. Do you mean classical liberal, liberal in the sense of individualism? Or do you mean the modern left? I can't tell. The biggest beef I have with feminists that does seem common to nearly all of them is this idea of universal sisterhood among women. It weirds me out with Christians, ethnic groups, etc. and it weirds me out with women too. How can I have an affinity to or connection with a total stranger other than our shared basic humanity? All women aren't my sisters. I don't even like most women (or men for that matter).
-
According to the best estimates (deduced from the structure of scheletons found) in the late paleolithic era (30.000 to 9000 BC, before agriculture) people lived on a roghly 50/50 plant/animal diet, and the average life expectancy of males was 35.3 years, and of females 30.0 years. And no, I'm not gonna provide you with any sources.
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.
-
Just for the record... I quoted that because I thought it funny in reference to the feminist academic issue.
I'd rather not be associated with the comments it brought out from DollarDoctrinaire, k?
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?
-
You seem to have a rather strange conception of what feminism is. The most common definition used in the academic world is; "Someone who acknowledges that gender is a social construction." Which is exactly what you're doing in your post.
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 determining sex and gender expression. One thing academic feminists routinely do is ignore the role and primacy of the individual, and that is where the Objectivist beef with them lies.
Objectivism ticked off my best friend
in Introductions and Personal Notes
Posted
Honestly this thread reminds me of some of the discussions I've had with my man LOL