the tortured one

There is also another purpose to hazing. I have to give much respect to people who graduate from the Citadel, VMI, and the military acadamies. They really put up with so much crap and still get an awesome education they tend to be able to do the job very well. When I interview someone who was in the Corps of Cadets or VMI I know that they will be predisposed to thinking for themselves and can commit to the task at hand. Plus, they tend to not get whiney over things like having de-caf or no cream left for the coffee. They concentrate on the mission (or big picture as it were). those kind words are greatly apreciated. Does anyone have any examples of hazing activities performed by women? Please exclude the military . . . they go to so much effort to treat everyone the same that they really aren't a good example. Outside of the military environment, the only thing I can think of are the Sorority initiations that I have heard of. I can't give anything concrete, except the fact that when I was a knob all I heard about was how much harder frat and sorority kids have it (which falls under the "Old corps" attitude that many possess. It's the idea that things were always harder back in the day. That is incredibly demotivating, sometimes the mind games they play with you are far harder than the PT.)

As a cadet at the Citadel, this is an issue that is central to my life. I was a freshman once, I was hazed on more than once occasion. Sometimes It taught me a valuable lesson. Other times all it made me do is hate life. For example, the friday afternoon spirit runs left me gasping for breath, but I felt empowered after every one. On the other hand, the only thing I learned from drinking windex is that it leaves your mouth numb for a day and that was a crappy thing to do to another human being. did it have a positive effect on my life? Beyond a shadow of a doubt. It taught me attention to detail, pride in everything I do, pride in my appearence. It was my freshman year more than anything besides Objectivism that taught me egoism and pride. It taught me the difference between good leadership and bad leadership. To this day I feel uneasy if I leave my house without a shave or dressed to kill. And nothing feels better than to go to a formal function and have shoes that are so shiny that you could use them as mirrors with which to brush your teeth. The worst was recognition day, which was what caught all that flak at Texas. That was one of the hardest days of my life. A full day of near constant PT and torment. But it also sits in my mind as one of the most memorable days of my life, because at the end of the day, I was shaking hands and laughing and getting to know my upperclassmen as friends. But then again, if it teaches good followership, it also teaches poor leadership. Some people use Hazing as a fall back all the time, and anyone who lives in the real life knows, you can't just go around beating people when they do something you disaprove of. George Patton nearly lost his rank of General because he slapped a man. You show me the man who can motivate his knobs to excel without the threat of physical violence, I will show you a great leader. There does exist, hazing for the sake of hazing. It serves no purpose other than to stroke the superiority complex of the upperclassman. It does nothing to the knob but embitter him and influence him into thinking that hazing is a necessary thing, that he should indulge in when he is an upperclassman. That does nothing but make (as Mark Twain put it) bullies and cowards out of men. but there is hazing that has a point. The knob messes up, he drops for some pushups. The upperclassman treads a thin line, because there is a huge difference between 20 pushups and 20 minutes of air chairs. this is to teach the knob that if you screw up, there will be consequences. Sometimes it is nothing more than having fun with the knob, with the feeling returned. I like to indulge in making one of the knob learn songs to sing. Nothing harmful. One song a week, to be sung in formation before parade. He's laughing, I'm laughing, he learns how to manage his time to fit that extra small amount of work in, and he learns not to be bashful or embarrassed about who he is. It's fun, because I remember that was the kind of stuff that was fun to me when I was a knob. Sure it's embarrasing to sing rap songs while I am white, tonedeaf, and tense, but that was part of the fun. Maybe one day when he gets recognized I'll take him out Karaoking with me I can't really say yay or nay, because it is a complicated situation. What I can say is this: what is the purpose of the hazing: are you trying to build him up, or break him down? If you do what you do to build him up and make him a better man (use your reason to decide what is acceptable and what is excessive) then why is it a problem? If your purpose is that you feel he should go through it because you went through it, and that makes it right, well then, I would say that person evaluate his outlook on the school. And while we are on the subject, Abu Garib was an example of hazing getting carried away. And anyone who has never had that temptation has little room to talk, because if you aren't maintaining a constant vigil over yourself, it can get way out of line without you even realizing it. I've seen a study by psychologists where they took 20 regular college students, made 10 guards and 10 prisoners, and hade them simulating a prison. By the 3rd day or so the guards were getting sadistic and criminal in their treatment of the others. It can happen to anyone without proper training in how to handle these types of situations. I blaim the sargeants and the lower officers for allowing it to happen, the pentagon for putting people who were improperly trained in a position of leadership, and the guards themselves for failing to police themselves.

Probably everybody thinks that the order they read Rand is the best order, myself not excluded. Not me I wish I had read The Fountainhead years ago. That is my recommendation for you.

Perhaps you should read CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL by Rand, or ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Hazlett. Capitalism is the only moral system, and many of the supposed fallacies of Capitalism are in fact false. Milton Friedman, for example, demonstrated the harmfulness of the minimum wage laws to racial minorities. He even went as far as to call them the most Racist laws ever enacted. With a little bit of study I think you will understand where we are coming from.

did Ayn Rand write of this specifically? Because that wasn't the impression I got from reading Atlas Shrugged. Observe Hank and Dagny's relationship. If they were to truly act in the best interest of their job, then the proper act should have been to sever all ties with each other. Their love eventually led to the nationalization of Rearden Metal. I do not buy the idea that the purpose of man's life is to amass as much money as possible. If that was the case then Howard Roark should have simply cut the corners of his personal philosophy, he could have made lots of money like Peter Keating did, and would not have had to resort to working manual labor. Besides, love is not sacrificing yourself. Love is mutually beneficial selfishness .

which idiot promoted it? I know Officer Barbrady bashed it after he learned to read, but I have no recollection of any praise of Atlas Shrugged. I loved the spoof of LOTR. Even though LOTR is remarkably pro-individualism and anti-collectivism. "The tape is evil! it must be destroyed!" "This tape must be returned to the movie store from where it came!" "Perhaps we can use it to power our star destroyers!" "Kevin, Goddammit..."

speaking of Heinlein, I heard STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND was good as well, though I can't comment on the amount of sexuality because I haven't read it. Of coursem, if it is PG-13 Heinlein you want, you can't go wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS. It's funny how many people labeled him "fascist" after that one, but much of what he has to say in the "history and moral philosophy" classes are quite poignant.

Trey Parker is a Libertarian, so that is why South Park tends to be anti-left, anti-war, etc. Matt Stone doesn't even think he's registered to vote, but it can be assumed he has similar views to Trey. That was actually one of their funnier, yet more distasteful episodes, iouswuoibev. Big Gay Al was a man who had come out of the closet and was open about his homosexuality. He was also the cubmaster of the boyscouts, and was expelled when the scouts realized he was gay (and in a bout of irony, a hidden pedophile replaced him.) The boys thought this was unfair, so they protested in front of a Grocery store. Soon enough, a fight broke out between two of the crippled boys (Jimmy and Timmy) who had been rivals with each other. people crowded around to watch the two boys fight (and was taken move for move from a movie whose name decieves me right now.) And eventually attracts such a huge crowd the people in the back do not know what is going on, and assume it has to do with the protesting of the boy scouts. They eventually attract the attention of a high level liberal lawyer (again, it's been a while, I can't remember her name either) who takes the plight of the boys personally and files sexist charges against the boy scout association. When she wins the case, she holds a big ceremony (and even uses the old "Today is a good day for democracy!" line) for Big Gay Al, but BGA announces that he has no intention of rejoining the scouts, because he recognizes the association's right to accept and deny whoever they wish. The liberal lawyer of course goes crazy with "Homophobe! fascist pig!" in another bit of irony. The episode ends with Timmy getting Jimmy thrown out of the scouts because he photoshopped a picture of Jimmy's head onto a picture of two gay men embracing. Another fantastic episode was the one where Cartman was charged with a hate crime because he threw a rock at a black kid (oddly enough, named "token") and they enlisted the aid of the black kid's father to prove that "hate" crimes are pointless (at least, no worse or better than the same crime without the race involved.) so in other words, it's in bad taste, but the bad taste is part of it's charm.

I made this post in another thread, but due to it's relevancy here, I felt it would be apropriate. Place yourself in a historical context. Our fight is Capitalism vs Welfare statism. Think back to the turn of the 20th century, when the fight was between Capitalism and Communism. Not pinko socialism that is flaunted today, but outright bright red 100% communism as Karl Marx described. Back then, there had been no failed communist systems, but because Capitalism was still young and developing, there were plenty of examples of how Capitalism (supposedly) was destroying the lives of the lower class (factory workers.) Men like Bastiat and Von Mises were living in rough times when Communism had gained a tremendous foothold in western lives, and Communist thugs like W.E.B Debois were treated as celebrities. Imagine being a capitalist during the 30's, a time when America was an economic wasteland and the Soviet Union was seen as the bright shining star of the future. the early 1930s was the only time in American history when more people emigrated out of the country than immigrated in. As late as the 1940s movies which idolized communism were still being made, as shone in the book "Ayn Rand and the Song of Russia." and before that fight, it was the fight that Jefferson and Madison fought: the fight between Capitalism and Mercantilist monarchy. Nowadays, how many Mercantilist Monarchists do you know? as for Marxism, the only Marxists I have ever met are either volatile teenagers or intellegensia who are too disillusioned from reality to actually make any contributions to society. We have reality, rights, and reason on our side. We will win. But we can not slack in our fight, because should we falter, or cease, America and the world will go the way of the Roman empire. Take it to the welfare statists. Let them dream of France and Sweden, those places will become ineffectual places eventually (as they already are becoming.) Then one day in the future when Capitalism faces it's next opponent, our descendants will look at our lives with mixed awe. They will be Incredulous that we were able to hold on to our values while under assault from the welfare statists, but at the same time envious as we do not know of the new enemies that Capitalism currently faces. consider the predictions of Ayn Rand vs. The predictions of Ralph Nader. Ayn Rand predicted that wage and price control would wreck havok on the economy. Ralph Nader predicted that corporate greed would never allow for consumer reporting, because it would hurt profits. Meanwhile, 30 years later, Ms. Rands predictions were proven correct in the 70's, which paved the way for the Reagan Revolution (which I believe was a direct result of Ayn Rand and the dissemination of her ideas.) Meanwhile, every single major media corporation has a consumer report program of some kind. Reason will always triumph in the end. perhaps no one can better describe my way of thinking better than the lovely Ms. Rand herself can: "The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth." ~ Ayn Rand (these words brought tears to my eyes the first time I read them)

Seriously, your story, while unpleasant to read, is also extremely common among men. The emotional trauma that the majority of males go through in romantic love defies description and belief — it's almost a wonder we're able to survive it all. if you thought reading it was bad, try living it!! I hope it was unpleasantness in the same vein as it was unpleasant to read about the people who died in Atlas Shrugged. It was certainly an unpleasant experience, but It was only after accepting Objectivism that I fully regained and in fact grew in self-esteem and love of life. That story is the end of my old destructive philosophy of christian altruism which had taught me my whole life that I was a sinful bastard and the only way I could live a good life was through Self-denial and sacrifice. That nasty breakup is a result of all of that brainwashing religion gave me when I was an impressionable kid. I wouldn't want to do it again, but I realize how essential it was to my growth. I felt like Cherryl Taggart, only I had somewhere to turn to, rather than a gun in my mouth. Hence, I wished to share it, as a guide the creator of this thread as to how I was able to get over my ex, and the steps I took, didn't take, and should have taken. I don't have to read PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT to understand how vital it is to lead a happy life. But I still want too And actually, my "Tortured One" moniker goes back to my freshman "knob" year at my college, when life was a series of formations, drill, PT, and angry squad sargeants. I kept it as a reference to Atlas Shrugged, when they tortured John Galt in trying to get him to accept the job as economic dictator of the U.S.

They say it's standard psychology that women get over relationships better then men do. Even Jeff Foxworthy recognized this fact: man breaks up with a woman, a woman will get her friends together, they cry about it for a little while, eat some ice cream, one week later she's ready to move on with her life. woman breaks up with a man, he'll spend a week denying he ever had feelings for her. A week later he's chasing small animals in his back yard with a weedeater shouting "she said she'd always love me!!!!" Humor aside, I know how bad it feels. I was with my ex for a year and 8 months, and I was passionatly in love with her (to the point where I was saving for an engagement ring) until I found out she was cheating on me. She didn't accept the fact that she was wrong, in fact, she painted herself as the victim and I as the villian. I wanted desperatly to get back together with her, and my knowledge of Objectivism was incomplete, so I took everything she said as true. I became insanely depressed and went through a very short nihilistic phase, when I just hated life. All because I had brainwashed myself that I was the cause of the problem, and the cause of the effect. This was back when I was a Christian Libertarian, so maybe that explains why I have such an aversion to both Christianity and Libertarianism (both failed me when I needed them the most) They began dating the night I broke up the relationship, and that hurt a great deal because it seemed to me that she wanted to get away from me, that she didn't love me. For two months I was in a stupor, and I tried everything in the book to try and win her back. I send her gifts, called her, wanted to be her friend, wanted to be there, talked trash about her new boyfriend. Meanwhile she led me on, knowing that I was destroying myself, but not daring to act (she was a sucker for attention.) Two months later, I made the best decision I ever made. I broke off all contact with her. I got my stuff back, gave her back what was hers, said my goodbyes, and never looked back. It was hard, but It was only then when I could say that I was truly over the relationship. This was also around the time when I embraced secular humanism, and was only a hop, skip, and a jump away from Objectivism. what helped me through was keeping my mind occupied, and being open about it. by the end of the second month, I was learning that the less time I spend sulking and the more time I spent out doing stuff with friends and being active, the less overal depressed I was. by the end of the second month, I was playing lots of golf, doing lots of fishing, and lifting lots of weights, all with my friends. It also helped that my sister helped me through it. She had been best friends with my ex, and was sorely disapointed with her when she found out about the infidelity. She became my vent, but also knew when enough was enough. I learned how to talk about it, but not dwell on it, because my sis would hang up on me when I wanted to do nothing but sit around and mope about how sad I was. Find someone who can be your confidant, but force yourself to acknowledge when you have passed beyond constructive venting, and into the realm of hapless moaning. Also, one thing I was warned about, was to not get a rebound. They are only substitutes that you are trying to use to fill in the gap left by the previous relationship. You are trying to make her into a new version of your ex, and you typically take out your frustration on the girl when she doesn't meet the impossible standards you set from your image of the ideal (which misguidingly was your ex.) That's not fair to either you or the girl, so I would give myself a month or two after a messy breakup before dating again.

my Ethics professor gave a good example of means vs. ends. two people start their own businesses. a man comes to both of them (independently) and offers each of them a bribe. One of the men chooses not to accept the bribe because he was afraid of getting caught. The other man chooses to not accept the bribe because he has a moral conviction against theivery. now the question is: who is the moral one? they both did the same thing, but was their justification for not accepting the bribe moral? same situation here. Objectivists want Capitalism, Libertarians want Capitalism. Does the ends justify the means?

here's a good refutation of relavism/subjectivism my philosophy professor gave me. "If you say that everything is relative/subjective, you are making a paradoxial statement. Since according to the statement, there are no universal absolutes, but the statement that "everything is relative" is itself a universal absolute."

posted I'll start doing my part by sending this to any Objectivists I know.

that was awesome. I wish more professors thought that way. what does this professor teach, and where does he teach it?

I liked THE BIRTH OF PLENTY by Andrew Bernstein. It's a historical Economics book, which highlights what has caused the creation of abundance (Capitalism) and debunks the myths of wealth creation (that wealth can be created by imperialism, natural resources, etc) Another book I have heard great things about is HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA by Thomas Dilorenzo. He is currently all the rage among Libertarians, but I do find most of his work to be rather enlightening. I have yet to read that one though.

who the heck was Arthur Miller? by the way you so eloquently described him, I should be glad I didn't know him. I am still waiting for Noam Chomsky to croak. Everything that comes out of that viper's mouth is nauseating.

What most of you (Mr. Williamson is a notable exception) seem to be overlooking is that libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy. It doesn't pretend to be a fully integrated philosophical system like Objectivism is. Quite a few libertarians derive their political beliefs from Objectivist ethics; many others arrive at them some other way. IF you look strictly at political positions on political issues, without regard to how either camp justifies its opinions, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between libertarians and Objectivists. and therein lies the flaw of libertarianism. Without a proper philosophical base, it is subject to the whims of the majority. Libertarians support free market capitalism. the next questions is, why do they support free market capitalism? that is where everything starts breaking apart. some say it's the greatest good for the greatest number. Some say god intended there to be Capitalism. Only Objectivists would say that capitalism is the only moral system, because only Objectivists have the Ethical and Metaphysical foundation to stand on that claim. are are alot of things that seem similar on the surface. Immanual Kant, for example, held that there is a universal code of ethics that we can only understand what this code is when we use our reason. That is very similar to the Ethical philosophy Rand held. But things started to break down (big time) when you go deeper. Karl Marx set up a metaphysical base very similar to Rand's. I don't think we need to go into the differences between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. Objectivists and (most) Libertarians are coming from completely different philosophical backings, they just happen to arrive at similar political philosophy. Larry Elders being a major exception to that rule. Larry Eldar has actually gone so far as to disassociate himself with the Libertarian party, and instead refer to himself as a "Republitarian." John Stossel has done this as well, though he refers to himself instead as a Classical Liberal.

believe that was how he was described as looking, with a big blaring bald spot.

that was beautiful, Mr. Bucko. That's exactly how I imagined Ayn Rand to be. I sorely wish I could have met her.

Erandror, I liked that wallpaper so much, I made it my own. Granted, I do not own a mac, but what the heck, right?

The first private schools have opened in Iraq in nearly 30 years. Al Mamoon scientific secondary school in the Yarmouk district of (I think) Bahgdad. This is the first time Private schools have been seen in Iraq in nearly 30 years. To quote the assistant principle Majeed Hamad Thir "During Saddam's time, we were thirsty for liberation and democracy, he isolated us from the world." Coupled with the recent elections, things are looking up in Iraq, I'd say. I wonder how long it will be before a free Iraq can stand on it's own two feet. I wonder if they will end up vilified like Israel is.

http://mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1737 It's depressing, really. How long will it be before Atlas Shrugged and sends Europe back to the stoneage it worships?

http://badnarik.org/supporters/forum/index...43dd3129942e9dc you'll never find a greater hive of scum and villiany but on a more serious note, this might be a better place to start, since you will spend more time arguing on other issues than "Capitalism is the devil!" same routine of most leftists.

heres another one from me WHile here I stand, not only with the sense of present pleasure, but with pleasing thoughts that in this moment there is life and food for future years. ~William Wordsworth.