source

Within the context of the game, the ad is for the plasmids which give you certain abilities to affect your surroundings by merely thinking about it. Now, even in the real world that kind of technology is concievable to me, but no matter what solution is eventually found, you will always have humans obeying the laws of nature in order to get something done no matter WHAT kind of technology you are using. This means that even if we one day develop the technology to enable ourselves telekinesis, that technology will be dependent on certain material things because at the very least you need to send energy by a process of thought to an object you are moving in order to move it (or it has the energy and your mind only tells the object to do the thing you want it to do). This is not "mind over matter". It never can be. This is mind working with matter, in accordance with the laws of nature, in order to produce the described effect. Simply stating "Mind over matter" IS the primacy of consciousness. It means that the mind is somehow more powerful than matter, i.e. it has primacy over it. Well, it doesn't. For one thing, it cannot even exist without matter.

Yes, I was wondering whether I mentioned that in my post. You are forgetting that in this "secret city" there have been newborn children. How should they be introduced to the fact that they are forbidden to leave Rapture? Also the absence of a contract between those who enter and the "owner" of Rapture is also noted. In my opinion, this is very important. Yet it's missing from the game. (If it's introduced later, cut me some slack. I've only just seen Neptune destroyed and saved the plants.)

I'll grant you that there can be a twist in the story in a sense that it gives an alternate explanation for the state of Rapture which would ultimately say that Objectivism is a good philosophy despite what happened at Rapture. If these were different circumstances, I'd probably make a wager with you at this point, assuming you'd claim that such a twist would happen whereas I'd say it wouldn't. From the two hours of gameplay I did until now, my hopes are not up and I still think that this game is yet another attack on Objectivism/Ayn Rand. On a side note, you claimed that Am I to conclude from this that you are in favor of enslaving people in the name of their "security"? As for an instance of Objectivist paroles being spoken while the surroundings scream the opposite, See Galt's speech, somewhere about 3.5/7 to 4/7 into it (in my edition it's 70 pages long and it's 35-40 pages into the speech that you can find the rebuttal of this). This is just something I noted after I posted here when I started the game anew on an easy setting since the only thing I'm really interested in is the story.

This game is quite obviously an attack on Objectivism. I just upgraded my computer so that I can play it now and I basically can't stand it any more and I've only been playing for 2 hours or so. Yeah, the entrance is all nice and shiny with a great banner and all, beautiful music... But then you actually get to play the game. There probably isn't a single moment when you DON'T hear a propaganda in the game (not that I want to find out, really), and if you pay a little attention to both the propaganda and your surroundings, you'll always find that the propaganda sounds like Objectivism, but the surroundings depict something quite different. It's like Ayn Rand's words have been torn out of context and placed in this fictional world in order to fool the unwary that that kind of philosophy has those kinds of consequences. In these two hours that I've played the game, I've heard Objectivism being criticized because its ideal society is such that it provides no social benefits for the poor, which is further incorrectly interpreted to mean that the poor shouldn't receive any help whatsoever; and because such a society's health care must be paid for (i.e. it's not free for everyone or at least for the poor). Starting off like this, I can probably imagine what the next route of attack is. Schooling? Roads and transportation? Or perhaps it "shows" that in such a society the branches of the government would become corrupt?

Achmed the Dead Terrorist - Ventriloquist Duration: 10:47 Edit: I'm sorry to see this thread dying. There are some great links here.

Could you please link to it?

I've been talking to a heterosexual girl the other day and in my attempt to grasp hetero and perhaps homosexuality (I'm bisexual), I ventured to ask this girl what values is she seeking in a man she could love. She mentioned some, such as honesty, tenderness, etc. and then I asked whether she would be attracted to a woman that has the same qualities. She said no, and that she simply does not find these values as attractive in women. My own position, as a bisexual, is that I do not make that kind of distinction; I find the same values attractive in both men and women. This is why I asked, in a further attempt to understand her distinction, whether that is because many women she knows already possess these values, but again she said no. All in all, she could not explain why she made this kind of distinction between men and women. I'm a bit at a loss myself here, so I'd like to know if someone already has an answer to this question: why do heterosexual and homosexual people make this kind of distinction? Is this psychological or biological? Is this a choice or predetermination? If you also have some studies that will back up your argument I'd be glad to see them. Thanks.

Capitalism Forever, With this statement of yours, and some of my own experience, I'm led to conclude that both nudity and closeness are social constructs, i.e. people view nudity and closeness differently, based on how (or where?) they were raised. In other words, it has nothing to do with reason, it's simply what you were taught. For example, in the case of being naked in the locker room: in Croatia this usually isn't the same as you described. People here sometimes notice other naked people in the locker room; I don't mean in the sense that they stare at them, but rather they snigger or are sometimes even shocked by it. I say "usually" because some people just don't care. As for closeness, I've read that people of some cultures tend to get very close together when they are speaking to each other, even if they barely know each other. Rationally, I'd say nudity is just that - being naked. Whether you are with strangers or alone, it doesn't matter. What meaning you decide to attach to it in a certain context, is arbitrary. As for closeness, I think it has much more to do than just being physically close to another person.

I consider myself shy, so when it comes to meeting strangers or starting a conversation with people I'm usually not the one to take the first step. But that's not always the case. I don't have a problem starting a conversation when I have something meaningful to ask, or say to a certain person. The problem arises when I'd like to meet new people; someone outside my usual social circle. For example, in an appropriate setting, I see a girl whose physical appearance I like and naturally I'd like to start a conversation. The reason I don't do it isn't my fear of rejection; it isn't a fear at all. It's a sheer lack of things to say. I could introduce myself, but then what? I don't know this person or anything about her. The very amount of things I can say is so overwhelming it produces nothing. (Like the question "Do you love life?" from Atlas Shrugged; Dagny says it can mean so many things it means nothing.) Now I come to think about it, maybe I should start using some pickup lines or what? Are there any suggestions?

How would you like to have this guy do your Christmas lights this year? Duration: 3:02

Neither did I want to talk about weight loss. I only mentioned this as a side note, i.e. it's possible to lose weight even when you don't count calories. I'm at a loss at figuring out why you took that as a main point in my post.

I've read that our organism is adapted genetically to the kind of foods our ancestors ate, and that these are the kinds of foods our metabolism can process best. At around that point I've decided that counting vitamins and calories is not really the way to go about what you eat. I didn't do a systematic research, but I did read many articles on the topic of food and what food is good/best for you, and many contradicted each other. Of all these, the one about genetic adaptation was the most sound in principle, which is why I chose to follow that theory. You can read some of my own musings, and find a link to the article on my blog, http://pinpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/the-perfect-diet/ . I've been practicing what I wrote there ever since. Back then I was just a bit overweight, but by merely reducing the amount of food I ate, I lost 6kg. No specially designed diets and no pills. I didn't even change the foods I ate, I simply ate less. Now I'm maintaining my weight at about 75-78 kg. I first read about this in a magazine called Geo, so if you visit their site you might find the articles on diets in the archives. I just couldn't find the English edition. Here's the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_(magazine) .

This one never fails to put a smile on my face: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WHWjNMhdY0I Duration: 2:44

How about LinkedIn? Many of my colleagues are using it, as a means to connections in their profession (thus more job opportunities for them). I'm using it too, but not using facebook or myspace, so if you agree, this topic could be expanded to include LinkedIn links.

Someone once posted a link to this video a while ago on these forums and I'm just surprised that a link to it isn't here yet. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ Duration: 5:28 Links to other videos with her speaking are there.

This video is so great, I literally had to applaud the speaker several times through it. It's long, but more than worth watching.

Unfortunately, I have been absent from the boards for a long period of time and I see that many new people are here, and I only saw several names that are familiar. But still, I'd rather have an employment offer than an affidavit, so I'd like to find out how to get one even if I manage to get an affidavit.

How about: "Thou shalt not follow commandments on blind faith."

I've been trying to get in touch with people who have been through the DV lottery and moving to the USA after winning the lottery, but they've been mostly unreachable to me. I've been doing this because I've previously been wanting to enter the lottery myself (and now I have), and wanted to learn more about what happens after one wins the lottery. If I got this right, when people get a visa this way, they are also required to have either, or a combination of the following: an affidavit of support, personal assets, or an offer of employment from an employer in the U.S. I have very little chance of getting an affidavit as I don't know any people in the US that well (no relatives either); also, my personal assets are not too great. The last option is to have an employment offer. The big question is - how do I get an employment offer in the US, if I'm not in the US? I thank you for any help, and if there are similar topics already open, please direct me there.

I've come to a conclusion about my parents a long time ago: they are tyrants. How did I get to that conclusion? Simple: when things don't go the way they want, they use coercion and force to get me or my brother to do what they wanted. That is your classic character trait of a tyrant. Yet another showed afterwards, not long ago: they seek unconditional obedience. My mother wants absolute control over my life. Any trace of independence on my part she wants to destroy completely, along with every hope of ever having independence. I literally have to fight for every little bit of control over my own life. She once told me that her greatest wish is for me to stay with her for the rest of her life. I was like, "Mom, what about MY life?" To which she would respond "Well, you need to take care of me when I'm old just as I took care of you when you were little." In other words, she is trying to make me feel indebted to her for raising me, while I can only do as much as feel greatful for it... but if that's what she raised me for - to take care of her when she's old - then I can't even be very greatful, can I? As for my father, he is there mainly as her last resort - when her coercion methods don't work, that's when he steps in. One thing I've been trying to fight off lately is being so financially dependent on my parents. I'm still at college, nearing completion soon, and these years were financed solely by my parents. I've been trying to find a part-time job for ages, only to realize time and time again that I already have a part-time job. My father owns a small business where I work too. I'm not constantly there, but when something needs to be done, I get summoned and I work. The problem with this is that they are using this as a way to cement my position as someone who would take care of his parents for the rest of their life. They provide scolarship for me through this company, and they say that I'm their investment, thus obliging me to come and work there after college (I would only mention that no such agreement - written or verbal - has ever been reached). My disagreement on this point is out of the question. I told them I disagree about that several times, but that didn't lead to having my scolarship denied (in some odd way, that would be great!). The only thing it lead to is the changing of the subject; my disagreement is like a taboo, and the underlying message of evading this subject is "We'll get you when the time is right (for us)." The only idea I have right now about how to resolve the situation is to get out of here head first. Attempting to improve the relationship with my parents has failed; trying to talk reason with them has failed. I'm confident enough that I could earn my own living and build a life elsewhere on my own, and as I've told my parents before, but they conveniently keep forgetting it, I want to move to and live (and work, of course) in the USA. But when I mention this, it's the story about my independence (or better, killing the idea of my independence) all over again. So do I feel the same way about my parents? I don't have the slightest clue about how I should feel. Sometimes I'm just furious with them, sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I feel like a playboy around my own parents; such as when a serious issue is ignored and some short-term pleasures create an illusion of us being a happy family and everyone is glad to play along and I know that this is all wrong but saying anything would make me a party or mood breaker and once again I would be getting a pep talk or a "lesson" from my mom which would be completely useless because it evades the real issue quite consistently. Besides, I realized that listening to such droning by my mother, aside from being completely useless because no matter what I say and how I try to attack the real issue, her evasion techniques are always better than my "deal-with-it" techniques, is bad for both my motivation and health. So, I guess the only truthful answer about how I feel about my parents would be sick and tired. P.S. If anyone has any suggestions about what I could do, feel free to message me because aside from the one idea I mentioned, I'm all freshed out.

Whoops, sorry, posted a solution accidentally. Hope nobody read it...

CAPITALISM FOREVER solved it!

Is this the book? http://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effect...0813&sr=8-1 This seems like a great advice. Thanks. I see what you mean, and I've already tried doing so. What prevented me many times, however, was exactly this inertia I have in social situations, when I can't come up with things to say as quickly as the conversation might require. However, I think JMeganSnow's advice can be useful here. Thank you both.

BLACKDIAMOND solved it!

Can you please give a concrete real-life example of how to do this (particularly observing actions of others and turning them into abstractions)?