Lazariun

Speaking as someone who hasn't read Rand's Romantic Manifesto, the impression I get from those images is, "visually interesting, but aesthetically simple". That is, I don't really think it is art, but simply design. Images like that don't make me feel anything in relation to the context of my life, they just seem pleasing to the eye in some cases. At most, they have a shallow aesthetic value to me. Anyway, I think the problem with this disagreement you're having with some of the people here is that somewhere along the line of them asking for more definitive statements from you, you got defensive because you felt they were attacking you. After that point, it seems like a constant back-and-forth of attack and defense, with no one really attempting to exchange anything but snide remarks anymore. In the future, statements like "So that's your analysis of me? Fail." should probably be avoided, if you don't want to immediately make yourself look like a troll. Even the word "fail" used in that manner reeks of 4chan.

Downloaded it and used MP3 Gain to turn up the volume to about 86 dB and that worked rather well. MP3 Gain: http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

I plan to put in a vote of No Confidence.

Kentucky here. Not too many O'ist about, up here.

I played a one-shot if it and didn't care for it. The system seems too homogenized and streamlined to the point of offering very little variation in character builds. I'll stick with 3.5 + Homebrew fixes.

The potential that a normal, healthy child will develop into an adult human with rational faculty is almost positively 100%, barring accidents. The likelihood that we will ever 'uplift' monkeys or apes or any other animal to that level is far slimmer. There arise questions between point A and point B, like "Why do it?", "Is it right do to it?", "How difficult will it be to do it?", "What are the consequences?". Just because the slim possibility that someone will maybe, possibly uplift an animal to the intelligence of a human being far in the future does not mean we should give rights to members of their species who will never possess it, right now. I think this is a reversal of the logic of cause and effect.

There are many excellent responses here, and I appreciate you guys sharing some of your experiences. Let me be clear that I am not trying to be dogmatic about my views. I understand that living a practical, moral life also involves dealing with people you don't agree with and accepting that it doesn't necessarily make them evil. There was a short time during the first month or so where I was very--I guess you could say--zealous about O'ism, but I like to think I grew out of this. The most I will say during a normal discourse is that I disagree, or, in the case where people such as myself are being generalized as stupid or ignorant for their beliefs, I'll step up and defend it. Otherwise, I don't really go around passing moral condemnation on everyone I meet. That'd be pretty detrimental for me, afterall. To answer eriatarka: I'm definitely not cutting friends out of my life because of their pirating. My own boyfriend pirates games and movies, and I've told him that I don't agree with him and that I won't watch any of them with him, but that it's his choice and I can't force him to stop. Hell, my own mother campaigned for Obama and is one of the most socialist liberals I know. It doesn't mean I'm going to cut her out of my life because of her beliefs. I know that she believes these things because she wants to help people who she feels just got a bum wrap in life. Her intentions are genuine, even if her premises are faulty. My roommate though... I've introduced him to Objectivism. He read For the New Intellectual and claimed for a short time that he agreed with it. Shortly after though he began to talk about how John Galt sounded like a preacher in his speech and that it made him wary. He's said morals aren't really important and are completely relativistic. This, plus some situations I won't get into, in which he has shown unfairness to friends and strangers, has put a bad taste in my mouth. He's still of value to me in that he pays his part of the rent, but there have been times that that's almost not come through either. When I say that I would cut people out of my life, it's really him I'm talking about.

I'm wondering if anyone here has had to cut friends or family members out of their lives as they came to integrate Objectivist ethics? I ask, because I find myself at a position now where close friends I'd once tolerated now become repugnant to me because of their morals. My roommate is one of these. He is the son of a tow-trucker, who steals the contents of towed cars, or so he tells me. He finds nothing wrong with this, but in fact he idolizes thieves and pirates for their apparent cunning and willingness to buck authority. His only rule seems to be: "If it happens to me or someone I know, it is bad. If it happens to someone I don't know, I don't care, or I admire the skill of the thief." While he's never stolen from me, this sort of attitude makes me mistrustful and honestly void of respect for him. A few of my friends, while not blatant idolaters of thieves, fail to recognize how pirating software and games is morally wrong. The argument I've often heard is: "Why is <i>copying</i> wrong? It's not really stealing." Even when I explain the impact this has on the producers of those products, they just don't seem to get it. It seems like just because it is easy, they believe it makes it basically morally neutral. This sort of view likewise makes me think very little of people I once considered highly. People close to me accuse me of being self-righteous or morally superior, but I see that only as an admittance of their own guilt and fear of judgment. It isn't cutting these people out of my life that seems hard, but that the cultural viewpoint seems to be that of the Cult of Moral Grayness. To be just and unrelenting in one's morals is to be inflexible, rigid and intolerant in the view of the masses. So how does one live practically and work among people who have this viewpoint? Really, I have the answer to my own questions. I know what I have to do. I just want to know if anyone else has shared this experience.

I too was in elementary school when they announced the verdict. This was math class and the teacher pulled out the TV for us to break and watch. When half the class got up and cheered as the verdict was delivered, my jaw dropped in bewilderment. That was the first time I knew that anyone was actually hoping he'd get away with it.

Again, how is it force?

As I said, my first estimation was that it was unethical, because it seems to create a stressed situation where a person has to make a financial decision in a short amount of time, under (pun intended) fire. The context of the history and the level of technology led me to consider that it may be a valid situation though. If there are no other alternatives, then it may be better to have some money for one's property than nothing at all. How is this forcing someone?

A friend of mine posted this entry a while back, with the question, "Is this an Objectivist firefighter?" I think this is really an ethical question. Considering Rand's Ethics of Emergencies, this struck me as unethical, to prey (forgive the polemic) on the dire straights of those in the middle of a crises, unable to make sound decisions. However, it then came into consideration that this manner of destroying surrounding edifices to curtail the flames may have been the only way ancient Romans had to put out fires. When you consider the alternative of having your property burn down and being penniless, selling it away may have been a blessing. Here you would get some money for your property that would be gone anyway, and Crassus gets his also. What do you think?

aim - paper ink flesh

Again guys, I really appreciate the help. Here is my response to her: Credit to those whose words I've borrowed here to make my point.

From what I gather, she is attempting to show that humans can act rationally but very rarely do. Excellent point on the wealth curve you mentioned. You've all given me some great points for thought gentlemen, and I appreciate it. If anyone else has further commentary please feel free.

So I have gotten myself into the middle of a debate with a Psych graduate student from my university about the nature of the bailout. After finally getting past a good deal of arrogant "oh, you little ungrad, just go study some more and then you'll have the right to talk", we've finally come to some real discussion. I'm having some trouble thinking about how I should attack her position though: Something about this doesn't sit right with me. I've seen the statistics she's talking about, regarding delay of reward, but it doesn't seem like a valid conclusion to immediately jump to "because people often don't delay reward, they are therefore not rational". It seems almost a fallacious line of reasoning. Anyone? Now, as for the rest of it, I find it interesting that it was she who took a conversation regarding economics and turned it suddenly into a conversation about whether or not human beings are rational or not. I think she's showing her true feelings about man: He is incapable of making smart decisions, therefore he is incapable of ruling himself. We must obviously interfere in the lives of others when it is for the benefit of the greater good. I am sure many people used the same line of reasoning to justify Monarchy. Also, since I brought up Hong Kong as an example of a mostly laissez-faire economy that has lasted long term, she brought up this: I'm very tempted to say that I don't really consider the gap all that terrible a thing. Am I mistaken?

I took MMA lessons for a short stint, before college classes took priority. They focused almost exclusively on ground-fighting based in Brazillian Jutjutsu, with some striking thrown in. My experience is that Brazillian Jujutsu is effective both as a form of self-defense and in the ring, so as other have said, it depends on your intent. Personally I am more for self defense. I'd never want to enter the ring and risk my body being destroyed by some over-hyped Attila with something to compensate for, but you may actually enjoy that risk. Either way, you are best off learning as much as you can about ground fighting, because as others have said, most fights end up on the ground. If you don't know what to do when you're down there, you're already dead or beaten. Of course, there is always cross-training.

I agree that you did an excellent job getting your bottom line across concisely and poignantly, despite Ingraham's obnoxious interruptions and overtalking. The moment she said "put a sock in it, you're annoying" it became obvious she's an utter hack and completely unprofessional.

I am a testament to the power of the internet in spreading this philosophy. I first encountered Rand through browsing Wikipedia and reading about the concept of Egoism. After I did some searches elsewhere, I wanted to read more of the philosopher herself and so picked up For the New Intellectual and found the philosophy of my inner thoughts put to print, fully explored and integrated. That was almost a year ago.

I know there have been other threads about t-shirts with Objectivist values, here's one I found rather pithy: http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Scree...ategory_Code=CG I think it's actually a pretty good way to describe sex in Rand's novels. Also, for counterpoint: http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Scree...ategory_Code=CG They probably wouldn't find this to be an insult though.

I was just thinking the other day that The Fifth Element is rather romantic in the contemporary and aesthetic definitions. Of course, you'll also have to like action movies. :>

Choose your friends, live your life and seek your own happiness. If part of your happiness is in trying to bring a little more rationality to the world, then go for it. Just don't lose yourself or something you care more about in doing it. To put it simply, in the words of Voltaire: Tend your garden.

Strangely enough, I first learned about Objectivism via Wikipedia, as I was idly researching philosophical Egoism out of my own interest. It seemed to speak to my own personal philosophy and from there I moved on to reading about O'ism. I found I agreed with a lot of what I read, so I decided to order For the New Intellectual. After reading that book and supplementing my education with the information I've found online, I discovered a philosophy I agreed with inherently. It was like Rand spoke with clarity my own inner gleanings. I am just now finishing up Atlas Shrugged. The internet is an awesome tool.