Jackethan
-
Posts
220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Jackethan
-
-
"Howard Roark" your comments in this thread from the very beginning have been overtly sarcastic. To try and come off like you've 'just been respectfully giving your opinion' of the work is pretty silly, in my opinion. It seems like from the moment this thread was posted you have made it your personal vendetta to disparage the artist and anyone who appreciates the art. From expressing sarcastic surprise that people on this forum would post praise for some of this art, to comparing it to scribbles, and implying that it should be totally and completely obvious to anyone why her art is 'bad' just as other posters are scratching their heads asking if you actually looked at the art at all.
The standard for art is not 'I figured out what the message is 2 seconds after looking at it for the first time.' If you don't like her work, that is wonderful, you're welcome not to look at it. If you're angry that other Objectivists do like the art, then I believe you're being a tad second handed by remaining here to further clarify how much you really don't like her art and try to pass off your snarky criticisms as 'not disrespectful.'
Tenderlysharp, I like several of your pieces. Had I money, I would buy some, and I think you have a lot of potential to do even better. Good luck. And "Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark."
-
In my (controversial) opinion, gender identity is a misnomer. There is sex, and then there is sexual identity. In all the "transgendered" individuals I have come across, they don't seem to actually be a woman trapped in a man's body but simply a man deluding himself that he should act a certain way. I do not think these people are acting like women, because I do not think all women act in any particular way. That sort of generalization seems as inaccurate as 'all men think with their genitals.' I think any personality traits which are commonly seen as 'feminine' such as enjoying conversation or listening well are a result of psychological influences upon female children after birth, not genetics. What's more in my experience usually transgendered males seem to want to absorb the entitlement and stereotypes of females more than anything. She'll demand that you open the door for her, want you to be the breadwinner, and feel entitled to manipulate you with guilt or sex. These are not aspects of femininity at all, merely bigoted (though in some cases accurate) assessments of some females from a male point of view.
To sum it up, I do not believe genetics has any deterministic function over a person beyond body composition and reproductive organs. I do not think a person can be born to be anything other than what they are.
I do, however, believe that it is not morally wrong for a human to work to change that which is given. If some men would prefer to be seen by the public at large as women, that is within their right, IMO, just like if a Jew or Italian wanted to get a nose job because he didn't want to be constantly identified as 'Jew' or 'Italian.' This is not a judgement in the nose section, I know some people with very big, oddly shaped, or stereotypical noses whom I regard as very good looking.
A sex change would not change the metaphysics that the person is in fact a man, however if he wants that badly to be regarded as a woman I see no reason not to grant that request.
-
Also see this cardiologist's ideas on excess fruit. Your almond intake is also not helping your omega ratio.
I personally like the taste of raw milk, however I've had to stop eating milk in general because it is too much of a temptation for me. Like you and Amaroq, I can drink a gallon of milk in one day. That is a huge amount of calories, and when the only kind of milk I'm allowed to buy (bid by my father) is reduced fat, that is also a huge amount of lactose, which is a sugar. Drinking milk in general without pacing myself hardcore (as in only drinking one small cup per day) usually causes my weight loss to stop. But my goal is weight loss at this point, and I do very little exercise, so the carb restriction may not be necessary for you if you actually do have glycogen that needs restoring and don't want to do that through ketosis. I was able to find a brand of raw milk at my grocery store in fact, but it is very expensive, $8.50 per gallon or so. It is truly non pasteurized, non homogenized, regular whole raw milk, (in an aisle next to several varieties of 'organic' milk which are ultra pasteurized) it tasted pretty good, in my opinion, but it is much too expensive. If I were to get raw milk on a regular basis I'd probably get it through a cow share or some local dairy farmer program.
Good post!
-
I wasn't saying a game without a story can't be popular, I was saying I don't like games without story. Even in a multiplayer game I prefer some form of storyline, especially something like DotA. The heroes could have backstories that give their move-set relevance and meaning, similar to street fighter or other fighting games.
You also mentioned one of the problems I have with the game, though. In my experience there were just a few 'bread and butter' heroes which were capable of dominating pretty much anyone (which is similar to fighting games as well) so you could mostly choose between them. Heroes weren't balanced so much to enable different players' styles of play, but more so that the players had to learn how to use one of a small group of heroes to be effective at all. Maybe they've rebalanced the teams since I played but as far as I know most hardcore DotA players had no real problems with this progression.
-
Oh good maybe the WC3 Bnet servers will have the players to do some maps -other- than DotA.
But seriously, I think DotA is cool and stuff, but I was never really able to get into it in a 'ZOMG THIS IS SO WORTH PLAYING ALL DAY' kind of way. It also completely lacks story of any kind, which is fine for a mod, but it would have to have one for me to be interested in playing it as a standalone game, especially if I'm going to pay for it.
But I definitely would be interested in an Objectivist gaming team. I've already made an Objectivists group on Steam and recruited some people but that's more a networking thing. Multiplayer games, for me, are less about the game and the mechanics and more about the players I'm playing with. I think I would enjoy playing with some Objectivist friends.
And it's always fun to see a modder in the community get success.
-
We all knew it was going to happen. There's no use denying it! From the moment of the thread's conception, it was known that this post would come. And now here it is:
Main Entry: pe·ri·od·ic
Pronunciation: \ˌpir-ē-ˈä-dik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1642
1 a : occurring or recurring at regular intervals b : occurring repeatedly from time to time
2 a : consisting of or containing a series of repeated stages, processes, or digits : cyclic <periodic decimals> <a periodic vibration> b : being a function any value of which recurs at regular intervals
3 : expressed in or characterized by periodic sentences
Yes, that's right. I just threw a dictionary definition up. This is not an attempt at snark or sarcasm toward any poster in this thread. It is simply a definition for clarification of a term.
Periodic means something very specific and important in the context of musical theory. Ayn Rand was not and did not claim to be a musical theorist, nor a psychologist, or any other kind of scientist.
Periodic also has a general definition which can be used outside the context of the science of musical theory with the above definition. Saying that "if she knew anything about physics, if she knew anything about musical theory, this is what she'd mean." is dropping the context. She did not know anything about physics, or about musical theory, at least that is what you should assume about her when reading one of her philosophical treatises. Her philosophical studies into the branch of aesthetics are not an example of Ayn Rand cavalierly using a basic knowledge of music theory to critique music, she is not using any knowledge of any special science.
The usage of 'periodic' is meant in its most general form as a concept, probably denoting that anywhere within the music there is some sort of repeat and interval. This is certainly true of all the music I listen to, and I listen to a wide variety of music from many cultures. You cannot reduce her definition to the smallest possible component of the song and say 'it doesn't repeat within this tiny context, so she either didn't like this kind of music, or she didn't know what she was talking about.' She meant that in general for a song to be 'musical' it has to repeat at some interval. This is simply a definition of music, much in the same way there is a definition of poetry which sets it apart from prose.
EDIT: As far as her attitude toward oriental musics, I believe her derision was directed specifically at the traditional musics of the area, probably specifically the music of China, Japan, and other Eastern Asian cultures. Until the influence of the West on this music it was largely antiperiodic and non-melodious. I find myself commonly wondering how one can stand to listen to it for long periods of times. However, since the introduction of many instruments to that region they have released tons of music which combines the strange traditional tunes with Western instruments and rhythms, making what I regard to be very nice music.
-
If MMOs make people antisocial, obese, and unhygenic, then McDonald's makes people obese and carb-addicted, television makes people stupid, running in the morning makes you a yuppie, and liking ABBA makes you gay.
Hint: none of these things are true.
-
PKD: I hope you're not still trying to convince him to see reason. This guy is a waste of such energy.
-
Ugh, the vegetarians will probably jump all over it. No harm is done to animals, and they'll probably make the meat cultured in soy or some other vegetable oil making it even worse than current grain fed grocery store meat.
-
Unfortunately for the compassionate vegetarians, eating meat and animal fats is a necessity to long term health. A vegetarian (or worse Vegan) diet is self destructive. The human body evolved over tens of thousands of years to eat animals, not grains, vegetables (exclusively), or bean products like soy.
Study the vegetarians you meet. It is likely they are unnaturally skinny and their skin tends to be pale and pasty. Eat meat. It's the moral thing to do.
-
Nice, I too got into pipes (and cigars, but that's beyond the scope of this topic.) I have a couple of straight pipes. I've got Captain Black in different flavors, but when I want something really tasty I got a bag of 'Whiskey' flavored blend from a local tobacco shop. I definitely enjoy the local blend over the Captain Black, however the Captain Black cherry flavored tends to smell best to others when smoked.
-
Simply, because musculature in the way modern bodybuilders (outside of Crossfit) form it is completely unnatural (and quite gross looking.)
Having enormous pectoral muscles is useless, it is known as a 'beach' muscle, because there is no natural activity which would cause that muscle to grow to giant proportions other than bench pressing. The modern standard of 'muscular' doesn't seek to build an ideal human body, it seeks muscle at all costs.
As a gay man who is attracted to masculinity, I still find most heavily muscled bodybuilder types (again, outside of Crossfit) to be gross and undesirable.
-
I'm the owner of the Objectivists group on Steam. Group induction is by invite only, but obviously anybody from here will get in no questions asked. Send me a private message via the forum if you would like to be invited to the Objectivists steam group.
Also: Jade Empire is $3.75 on Steam until January 3. This is a really good single player RPG by Bioware and I recommend it highly. It's a good excuse to get steam and join our group!
You can download steam at this website.
EDIT: Added a dollar sign to the price of Jade Empire for clarity.
-
Because he is planning on selling them a way to lose that weight would be the obvious answer. I don't know his exact intentions, but that's what seems to be going on. (I can't think of any altruistic reasons to patent software)
I wouldn't worry about Microsoft stealing your health records. This would obviously be done with the cusrtomers' permission.
Obviously, in the game that includes this technology, you're not gonna be able to have whatever avatar you wanted, that would defeat the purpose. You would be able to not participate in the game, or in the part of the game where the weight loss people are playing.
You make a lot of positive assumptions about the use of this technology.
Xbox avatars are not game specific. If Xbox decided to give fat people fat avatars their fat avatar would be seen in every game they play and on internet scoreboards.
-
The badguys were one dimensional. Calling them evil fascists gives the director more credit on their development as characters. The CEO somehow managed to become a CEO of a company that travels space and sets up mining colonies on other planets and yet he knows jack about computers and science? Really? This is obviously a thinly veiled barb at CEOs in general.
The evil military man had no real reason to do anything he did. You don't see anything of his philosophy, all you know is that he regards the na'vi as animals, and wants them to be slaughtered. This is like saying that companies looking to drill in Alaska will line up polar bears in giant pens and shoot them all, just for the fun of it while they busily drill for oil.
The Na'vi had a right to the land they lived on. They were not nomadic. If you're the only sentient race on a planet when another discovers it, the planet is most definitely yours. The alien (humans in this case) race is a guest. Obviously since the Na'vi attacked, an unwanted guest. They were attempting to establish a rapport with the Na'vi, which was nearly successful, but the amazingly ignorant CEO and his sociopathic (again, dunno why, he just is) military commander would just rather kill them all and get to mining ASAP.
The story tries to be an allegory for native americans, but it fails miserably. The only thing it is obviously allegorical to is the struggle of environmentalists today. There is no mistaking that as the overall philosophical message of the movie.
-
It is altruistic.
Why does Bill Gates care who is overweight and who is not? Why should it be a value to his company to reduce the number of overweight people? Why would I, as his customer, want to be forced to take part in this ridiculous "I know what's best for you." marketing ploy?
The tech sector files tons of patents every day, most of them have no real chance of ever making it into development. I highly doubt this is really something Microsoft is going to do. However if by some off chance MS really did do this, I would be selling my xbox. I have no interest in having my personal life pried into by a giant multinational corporation, or being "nudged" or "motivated" to do what's supposedly "best for me."
Now, if xbox -asked- me if I'm alright with participating in this new feature on xbox live, and I was able to say 'No' and be able to have whatever avatar I wanted, then I wouldn't care at all.
On another note, what standard will they be using to gauge overweight? The Body Mass Index? That method is highly unscientific, and will often count only the skinniest anorexics or vegetarians as 'healthy' and everyone else as 'overweight'.
-
Happy Birthday Ryan.
By the way, Nick confessed to me that this was his way of letting you know that he loves you.
-LOVES- you. In a romantic sense. You're his hero, in every sense of the word.
Just an FYI.
-
I knew any argument about diet or exercise was going to turn into a back and forth about sources and a bunch of people saying 'well I've been eating X for years so I'm gonna keep eatin' it.' I have no interest in further engaging in debate on this. All I'm here for is to further clarify the point being made in Ropoctl's original post, and show a cool link to the way to get started on the paleo diet. In fact, here are a few more, for those interested in researching the diet for themselves:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
Whole health source is a blog by a neurobiologist and heart scan is by an MD specializing in the heart. They both have had many posts that I've enjoyed reading while researching the paleo diet and its impact on health.
-
Here is a link to exactly what foods are good and bad according to the Paleolithic diet: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/
As for your assertion that paleolithic man died young, please provide a source? We have plenty of evidence that post-civilization grain-fed man died young, from many different anthropological finds around the world. However I do not believe there are sufficient such finds to assert an average life expectancy of paleolithic man. If you have one, I'd like to see it.
As for obesity, eating on the paleo diet will very likely make you thinner. If you are bodybuilding, it will help your muscles grow as well. I was simply commenting on no1729's assumption that the goal of a diet is to lose weight. That is a narrow view of dieting in general. Overweight may be a superficial incentive to go on a diet, however the goal of most diets is to provide sustainable lifelong health.
-
The article is specifically referring to the Primal or "Paleo" diet actually. The Atkins diet is a similar diet but not the same.
As far as taste, generally red meats, butter, cream, cheese, and other animal fats are seen as foods that taste good but should be avoided due to their alleged negative health impact. The alternatives given are lowfat, or vegetable based fats. Generally, to me, butter tastes a zillion times better than Margarine, and anyone I know that thinks margarine tastes better is highly obsessed with the idea that butter is unhealthy.
The fact of the matter is, mankind evolved eating a certain diet, which consisted of meats, vegetables, fruits, and nuts. Our bodies are not designed to eat the modern day diets that include grains, whole or processed, vegetable oils, and fruit juices packed with High Fructose Corn Syrup.
So, whether a nice piece of steak with a side of asparagus sounds tasty or not to you, it is the way to eat healthy.
I enjoy having four to six slices of bacon and scrambled eggs in the morning with absolutely no guilt. I cook the eggs in the bacon fat, and boy is it yummy. If that doesn't sound like a delicious meal to you, then you've probably been programmed to think so by years of thinking that all that fat is going to give you a heart attack.
That's the point of the paleo diet.
As far as "Since when is it obligatory to not be fat?" Weight loss is not the goal of the Paleo or -any- diet. The goal is to -be healthy-. On the Paleo diet you can -be healthy- without sacrificing good tasting food.
-
I'd be happy to provide you with an audio track of me saying "This is John Galt." to go over Bale's. I've got a little voice acting experience. PM me if you're interested.
-
His argument applies to altruism between complete strangers. It is completely true: if you give twenty dollars to a total stranger there is absolutely no guaranty you will get any reward back in any way shape or form. There is no mystical force which promises to turn every self sacrifice into a mutually beneficial trade. It is up to you as an individual to ensure that whatever you're doing you're in a situation where you will see the reward which you are expecting. For instance, when someone buys an old knick knack from you at the swap meet, you expect to see the money first. The fact that you're not holding a gun to each other as you trade money for item does not mean you're "taking it on faith" that the guy is going to give you the money for the item. It's called trust.
If you place your trust in a person, you've made a rational judgment that they are worthy of that trust. In that case if you were to give something to them and expect something in return, you'd tell them what you expect in return, and they'd probably give it to you. If they don't give you what you want, you're not likely to continue trusting them.
If you are in a friendship and you buy a birthday present for him, you might implicitly expect a birthday present from him on your birthday. Barring some horrible financial strain on him, you might rightly be hurt if he doesn't get you a present. It might prompt you not to buy him a present next time.
The point is, altruism from the perspective of giving something to a stranger completely free and expecting that philanthropy to be returned to you by arcane means -is- irrational. If you give to a charity, your philanthropy should be rationally based on the idea of valuing whatever that charity is for. You should be okay with sinking money into the charity and seeing -absolutely no- material return for you. The payment would be emotional. That's why charity should be chosen on an individual level and not mandated by law.
-
Having a fetish "may" interfere with complete sexual expression. May is the key word there. Obviously, if you can't get off without rubbing your hand on a latex balloon, you want to work to train your mind to lose that fixation (or find someone else who likes balloons too.) Most fetishes are results of subconscious training people do to their minds. Some of the most irrational fetishes -are- a result of people surrendering their willpower and just following the 'whim' of their body, or of the moment. However, if a man who has a fetish for stockings and becomes aroused when his wife is in stockings, how is his fetish irrational? Through the use of this fetish his wife can signal to him covertly that she's interested in sex, or get him interested in sex when he isn't. The sharing of healthy fetishes can only lead to a stronger sexual bond, which leads to a stronger spiritual bond.
I agree with Bluecherry's analysis of masculine/feminine and gender. Apart from the physical differences there is very little difference between men and women that is not a result of environmental conditioning. This conditioning starts from birth. When you have a baby girl you dress her in pink, when you have a boy you dress him in blue. Everything you do and say to your child while raising bears the stigma of your particular bias for their gender. This is a good and natural part of raising a child, a child should have a gender identity, I don't believe we should all begin raising children androgynously. However since these values and behaviors are resultant from environmental forces, they can be changed. Sometimes they can be changed very easily, sometimes they are more difficult, however they are always changed voluntarily.
Christians today are trying to use psychology to manipulate the minds of homosexual men and women to try and 'excise the gay' out of them. The results are usually very poor. A truly interested man or woman could change his or her sexuality through the use of psychology, however it has to be done voluntarily. The main reason Christians give for why these people should change from gay to straight is guilt, and guilt is not a healthy emotion. Nor should the choice to be gay or straight be left up to emotion at all.
I do believe sexuality is a choice. It is definitely heavily influenced throughout childhood, from birth on. For some people a change can happen easily over time, whereas others don't even see how such a change is possible for themselves. This is neither a result of 'genetic' preferences, nor environmental psychological determinism. It is simply that some people made the choice at a very early age, and have since not had to question it. If this is the case for you, great! There is no reason to change something you are happy with. However, for others, the choice to be gay, straight, or bi has to do with rational judgement based on values.
To say that there is no way to choose sexual preference, for anybody, is to surrender volition.
-
Allow me to stir the pot!
What if you make a trade with someone, trading money for some item of theirs. At the time of the transaction, you believe you deserve the item based on the amount of money you gave, and you're pretty sure they deserve the money for the item.
The next day you find the same item, same quality, same maker, for much cheaper than you paid. Who deserves what now? Obviously it's a case of caveat emptor, however did you deserve to be treated fairly? Did the guy who sold to you deserve your money?
And on a separate note, how do you go about psychologically divorcing your feelings on whether you deserve your item back and the rational fact that you should have shopped around. Is the blame squarely on you, how do you accept the blame?
Project X in the real world
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Do not be so proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of philosophical cultural change.