Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Live forever or die trying

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Live forever or die trying

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/01/1980

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    SF Bay Area
  • Interests
  1. Check out this regulation from the Sunnyvale, CA Public Safety site: WTF?!
  2. Oh yes. You are getting SPAMMED. Bahaha. =) I kid. How goes the whole immortality deal?

  3. . Are we still debating whether gay people are born that way, or whether then can choose to stop being gay? The same goes for bisexual people. I'm not sure a distinction is made here, so I'll try to clarify: polyamorous relationship = romantic non-monogamy, sexual non-monogamy monogamous relationship = romantic monogamy, sexual monogamy swinging = romantic monogamy, sexual non-monogamy The comment above seems to make a false dichotomy between polyamory and monogamy. There is a third choice: swinging. The fact that bisexual people enjoy (not "need") to have sex with both g
  4. My friend did break up with that boyfriend, but let's get back on topic: What do you mean by "settle down"? I assumed "Be sexually exclusive with". In that case, my post simply says that a bisexual person who becomes exclusive with a partner of a given gender, will never be able to have sex with the other gender. For many truly bisexual people, this (i.e. just desiring sex with the other (non-settled-down-with) gender, vs. fulfilling the desire) is a silly limitation. Also, you haven't addressed the fact that some perfectly rational folks have a desire for threesomes. For them, sexu
  5. I have a very good female friend who is bisexual. She is not at all content just desiring women. In a past relationship, her boyfriend demanded sexual exclusivity, and she resented the limitation. The materialization of her desire for both genders is a necessity for her. That is a fact. Of course, she could give up desiring women, just to be sexually monogamous to her man, but why? That would equate to heterosexual people becoming asexual: why?
  6. Catherine, That is a fortunate case because your romantic and sexual needs needs do not extend beyond the realm of one person. But, as a poster on Dan's blog pointed out, what if someone is bisexual or likes threesomes?
  7. Yes, that was me. I simply intended to link to the review, not pretend I'm Laura Kipnis. I apologize for the outcome.
  8. As mrocktor demonstrated here, "The value of this study to our discussion is precisely zero." because the sample was taken from a monogamous population indoctrinated into monogamy, for which any straying would create immense guilt. No wonder that sexual satisfaction increased with lack of guilt. However, having sex with someone other than your spouse doesn't trigger guilt in swinger couples. See this study, The Case of Swingers - Today's Alternative Marriage Styles which concludes that "If swingers have found a way to stabilize relationships, prolong family ties, and enrich the lives of c
  9. I hope we are not debating the use of anesthetics here? They're medical devices that only masochistic religious fanatics refuse to use. Anesthetics, used for their intent, are OK, period. Does anyone disagree? PS: I think (and hope) Phlegmak was being sarcastic.
  10. This is what I would say as well, if given the opportunity to do so. It's tactful, yet honest, reassuring for her, and the son preserves his integrity. A lesson learned from this is that such dilemmas are rarely so dichotomic in reality; and the scenario should be clear in order to not allow for middle ground, at the risk of becoming unrealistic. The only way the initial dilemma in this thread could survive would be if the mom could only perceive a "Yes" or "No" answer. Imagine she has become deaf and blind, and she asks the son: "My son, hold my hand tight if you found someone to marry, an
  11. I assume you mean "how they choose to react to the lie". Good point, but what was the cause for the mom's reaction to the lie? The son's lie. The son would therefore take credit for his own action, whose result he anticipated, not for the result itself. Interesting point. I think what needs to be clarified here is the distinction between honesty and integrity. We agreed that honesty can and should be breached when one's own life is at stake (the gun-to-my-temple-do-you-renounce-objectivism scenario). "Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in
  12. Agreed. It has always bothered me that I had no choice but to be raised, and hence owe my upbringing to my caretakers. Sadly, that is a fact of reality, and it is conceivable that a mother may at some point, directly or tacitly, appeal to the principle of trade and demand that her son repay her in some fashion. In this debate, that repayment would involve the son lying, once, just before the mother dies. It has been agreed before in the thread that in the long run, truth is the best policy. I think that it is the best policy even in the medium, or short run. However, the scenario in this
  13. I think that in normal circumstances, accepting an unpleasant truth can be much easier than when one is on their deathbed, living the last minutes of their life. If you ever held in your arms someone you cared about, who was in excruciating pain, feeling the terror of death in every fiber of their being, you'd understand. If you never did that, you can only imagine how it feels, which is (scientifically) not the same thing. (see Mirror neurons) The person who is dishonest here is the son. However, the son's belief of reality does not change. The son knows very well that he hasn't found
  14. Why would you want to end your memory of someone you care about with their tearful face contorted in a painful grimace? Remember, this is not a rational person, and truth can hurt her to any degree. In this particular scenario, there are no long-term consequences for the mother, because she dies. The only long-term consequence would be for the son, who might feel guilty for saying something he knows as untrue, to help her die happy. But would that guilt be justified? Agreed, dying happy is a small, short-term benefit, compared with dying upset. Doesn't lying to someon
  15. We don't live in a rational world. This scenario is very real and also likely, in my particular situation: I may receive the "Have you found a suitable girl yet" question from my grandmother, quite soon. I don't admire my grandmother for her rationality, but for her love in taking care of me as a child. Assuming I haven't found said girl, should I lie or not?
  • Create New...