Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

iouswuoibev

Regulars
  • Posts

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by iouswuoibev

  1. What resolution is your desktop?

    1280x1024. And now I've tried stretching the window to the full screen width the banner no longer obscures it.

    There's another problem though. If the user list length exceeds the size of the user list box, you cannot see all the users except by "scrolling" by highlighting and dragging downwards on the text.

  2. If you stay logged in (at the cost of having an extra window open) it is likely to stop other people from getting this same idea and ending up with a dead chatroom. You don't even have to be around to chat all the time, the mere presence of other people is often enough to keep people checking in.

    Actually, this might not be possible. I think there is an idle timeout limit.

  3. Pretty cool, David ... I'll have to come back when there's some activity. :)

    If you stay logged in (at the cost of having an extra window open) it is likely to stop other people from getting this same idea and ending up with a dead chatroom. You don't even have to be around to chat all the time, the mere presence of other people is often enough to keep people checking in.

  4. It's not that I had a taboo, so much as it is this isn't a topic that is broached much on these forums. At the risk of sounding like I'm bragging (which I'm not), I love dirty talk, especially during sex. I won't go into the specific words and phrases that I like, but it makes it much more enjoyable for me.

    Well that added nothing to the discussion. Do you have any idea why you like it?

    And why on earth would it be something braggable? I couldn't care less what you do in bed, and neither should anyone else.

  5. As long as we've temporarily broken the sex-talk taboo, what are your opinions of "talking dirty" to a partner. Assume that the partner is a proper sex partner (spouse, live-in girlfriend, etc.).

    Well maybe you had a taboo about sex, but I certainly didn't. Sex sex sex sex sexy sex.

    For a man, talking dirty can be a way of expressing ownership of and entitlement to your partner, as well as just showing general masculine boldness. For example, you could announce to her that sometime later tonight she's going to be having her brains f**ed out (for added effect state the exact time). Assuming you're not an idiot and did it in the proper context, and with nonchalant certainty, this can be quite a turn on for her (though make sure you do as promised!). It helps if you don't swear very often under normal circumstances though, otherwise it won't be very effective.

  6. I just noticed that the site turned three years old this February 2nd. Here are the latest stats:

    Board Statistics stats.gif Our members have made a total of 76,477 posts

    We have 2,396 registered members

    Most users ever online was 250 on Dec 21 2004, 04:47 AM

    250 is quite a peak. Any idea what might have caused it? Something to do with xmas perhaps?

    250 is quite a peak. Any idea what might have caused it? Something to do with xmas perhaps?

    Also, did that figure include anonymous users [EDIT: I meant guests]?

  7. Thanks to the generosity of our patrons and advertisers, the piggy bank for ObjectivismOnline is filling up. I would like to solicit ideas on how the funds can be invested to improve this website. What changes would you like to see?

    What can money buy for an online forum except more bandwidth? I can't think of anything.

    Hey, that might be not such a bad idea, then you could raise the flood control threshold which is, at present, very slightly annoying.

  8. I refer to this sentence when faced with a question like whether to drink or not, "The only reason to do one thing over another is if it will better serve your overall happiness." I think the answer lies in the individual, and depends on personal values and personal circumstances. I see no universal moral evaluation on this issue sans the person to whom it applies.

  9. Yeah, ignore me. I just looked it up on dictionary.com and got devour as a valid meaning. The definition I just gave was from wordweb (an offline software dictionary). It also gives the sole definition of egoism as "Attempting to get personal recognition for yourself (especially by unacceptable means)". Guess I shouldn't rely on it so much.

  10. My method is to shut my eyes, and poof, we're there (well, after 5 minutes). I don't think about what I did today, or what I'll do tomorrow. However, sometimes I do, and then is when I have problems sleeping. Generally I am 1000% skeptical of homeopathic solutions, but I've found that scarfing a melatonin will put me to sleep when necessary, which is pretty much after any flight to Europe, and 2 days following.

    Verb: scarf

    1. Masturbate while strangling oneself

    2. Unite by a scarf joint

    3. Wrap in or adorn with a scarf

    (peers at [EDIT: DavidOdden] curiously)

  11. Does anyone here NOT use a specific method for falling asleep, and just do it "naturally" ? I suppose I could analyse my method: I wait until I get tired, go to bed, then let my mind and body do the rest. Now that I reflect upon it, I used to have semi-frequent nights where I would have great difficulty falling asleep. Now I'm going out on a limb here and might be wrong, but I have a theory that it's because I had a neglected mind: I wasn't "expending" my brain-power during the day when I should have been. When you don't think about your problems and use your reason to tackle them promptly, it leads to pent up frustration. and when it comes to the time of unwinding and falling asleep, your relaxed consciousness becomes more acutely aware of the things it was ignoring and says "I'm not ready! I have things to think about!" but then you're too tired to do that thinking, so you get torn between the goals of falling asleep and thinking about things.

    Regardless, I haven't had problems with falling asleep for a very long time.

  12. Your error is not linguistic, but philosophical. Instead of going by what people mean by something, listen to what they actually do mean when they say it, and what premises are hiding behind it. You'll find that there is a bare definition present - one which an objective person agrees with (e.g. Selfishness = Concern with one's own interests, Objectify = Regarding something as an object) - but on top of that there will be an implicit evaluation or dubious premise that should not be in the definition at all. Your sense of the word "objectify" carries within it a premise that you aren't letting go of. Maybe you should take that premise as the issue at hand instead of contesting the definition.

    Another observation I've just came to is noticing that there is a parallel between thinking that "objectifying" requires that you regard consciousness as non-objective, and people who think that communism "works in theory" and is an objective, logical concept, with capitalism on the other side being a passionate, reasonless, faith-driven concept. Its the people who think that to be objective means to be cold, inhuman, to sacrifice others to self, to regard humans as ants serving the queen ant of society. It's the same premise that causes both viewpoints.

  13. Originally from Myrhaf,

    I've always looked at Valentine's Day with a jaundiced eye. It's silly. Cupid flying around shooting people with arrows? Chocolates in a red heart-shaped box? "Be my valentine"? Do these things celebrate passionate love or trivialize it?

    Valentine's Day is for people who are not in love. They can compartmentalize their love to February 14, get it out of the way and return to their gray, passionless existence the other 364 days of the year.

    Now I see that Islamic fundamentalists are attacking Valentine's Day. Damn them. They'll make me defend the holiday. If they hate Valentine's Day, then it must have some merit.

    Sounds like the words of a psychotic hermit (with a jaundiced eye). Whether Valentine's is a celebration or a trivialisation is down to the individual. The content of this post insults everyone who celebrates valentines day, regardless of why or how they go about doing that (I think sex is the best way). Having said that, I agree that valentine's is silly. Why should one's romance it be any more exceptional than the other 364 days of the year? But I think those who celebrate it are just misguided, not "not in love". Sweeping statements like that are overgeneralised and offensive.

  14. It also doesn't make sense that we park in a driveway, yet we drive on a parkway. There are plenty of strange definitions in the English language, but I'm not about to try to redefine them all so that they make perfect sense. When I use the word "objectify," I use it in the sense that I just described.

    Your error is not linguistic, but philosophical. Instead of going by what people mean by something, listen to what they actually do mean when they say it, and what premises are hiding behind it. You'll find that there is a bare definition present - one which an objective person agrees with (e.g. Selfishness = Concern with one's own interests, Objectify = Regarding something as an object) - but on top of that there will be an implicit evaluation or dubious premise that should not be in the definition at all. Your sense of the word "objectify" carries within it a premise that you aren't letting go of. Maybe you should take that premise as the issue at hand instead of contesting the definition.

  15. I've said it before and I'll say it again. One of the issues I have that prevents me from calling myself an Objectivist is that the Objectivist definitions of commonly used words seem to be somewhat esoteric.

    But this is not a distinctly philosophical topic. To objectify means to regard as an object, but most people take it to mean regarding a person as solely a PHYSICAL object, without any consideration to their status as a conceptual being. Why would they make that leap in logic? Because, they regard consciousness as a mystical, non-objective phenomenon.

    EDIT: reworded sentence

  16. I don't see how being acted upon is inherently feminine, and acting is masculine. Personally, I wouldn't want to be the only thing moving in the bedroom. While acting is fun, I want the feeling of being acted upon also. I'd love to be taken by the right woman. What is wrong with that?

    Good question. Men and women have the CAPACITY to integrate a sexual psychology that is befitting the opposite sex. The two poles I describe are not intrinsically masculine or feminine, but there are no better words to refer to them by (words like submissive, controlling, owning are all either imprecise or nonessential- EDIT: or ommit other essentials). Ideally, as a requisite to the happiest, healthiest relationship, the appropriate psychology should be embraced consistently and exclusively, without any trace of the opposite. As to why I think you can only have the happiest, healthiest sex life by this means, that's a question I'll answer seperately on another day (as it requires a much longer answer).

×
×
  • Create New...