Chris.S
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chris.S
-
-
I like how Athol Kay puts it in his blog "Married Man Sex Life". A guy needs to balance alpha/beta male characteristics. Some guys go too far both ways, but the right balance has to be found, depending on the couple. Can be something between 60/40 to 80/20 or more, but the man has to take the lead and that doesn't include being overly emotional in the early part of a relationship. His blog helped me put words to the way I already was acting in my own marriage, and we're fantastic.
-
Being in the construction industry myself and having to learn the building code here in Ontario, I've often had the same conflict in my thoughts and with others. For the most part, the building code here is what I think it would be if written by a private organization, in that construction professionals ranging from designers to builders to safety specialists (among others) are consulted to craft the Code.
Still, the fact that government is involved and assumes every builder will construct a tinder box that locks from the outside during a fire is pretty ludicrous. Owners, insurers, bonders, banks, lawyers, subcontractors and every other project participant would be involved in taking an unsafe builder to the cleaners at court. And in my company, health and safety comes above everything, which is one of the bigger reasons it's doing so well. People and other companies don't want to do business with unsafe builders, and news of any major accident resulting in serious harm or death gets around quick and can really damage a clean reputation. And actually, even one major safety incident, or a few minor ones on record, can mean the difference between getting a job or not, even if you have the better bid (same goes for pre-qualification on big projects).
I do think that government involvement in building codes (or any safety codes) is immoral, but it's kind of like the argument with roads: government shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is, it may as well set the safety standards to a reasonable level. If I get a chance I'd like to try to reverse that, but I'd be one drop of water going against the current.
-
Update:
Finally finished school! 4 years of torture, but it paid off yesterday when I got a really good employment offer from a great company that I've been trying to get into since Oct. 2011. Feels fantastic! I'll be doing construction management for a construction services company. They work in mining, metals, energy and infrastructure, which is a big change from my ideas of 3 years ago, but I think that's the best area to be in for a long while. And I've taken a lot of inspiration from Alex Epstein and the CIP, so eventually I'll try and do some writing work in that area as well.
So pumped for this. I don't think I would be here either without having picked up Atlas Shrugged one fateful day in March 2008. Amazing what a rational philosophy can do for a person.
Also want to throw a shout out to all the really great folks who regularly post and moderate this forum who provided a nice venue for working out thoughts and ideas, and coming at issues from different angles. Y'all are great. Thank you.
Oh yeah and my lady went full on capitalist a long time ago!
-
I like Catan as well. Another good one is Power Grid.
-
Bad. Bad, bad, bad.
Brick to the face? More like wrecking ball. Please don't waste your time or money.
-
I see that Dwayne Davies has been banned, he was probably the worst but he certainly wasn’t alone in being not just wrong, but in being abusive about it.
Just speculation on my part, but it may have to do with him being an associate of CheckingPremises. I tend to agree with the ban, if so.
-
How could that even have been published?
-
Team atmosphere = knowing that everyone in the organization is on the same page and working toward the same goal. Sports teams, political parties, clubs, and businesses all have goals that must be achieved through the combined effort of individuals doing smaller tasks and achieving smaller goals.
But how about camaraderie? Friendship? Familiarity? Acquaintanceship? Alliance? Company? Squad? Unit? Troupe? League? Are those floating abstractions?
Knowing how others tick makes working together easier and more fluid. Getting to know how others tick is achieved through being social, amiable, friendly, chatty, ie. communicating information about each others life.
Do you have anything of substance to add to your own topic? I find it silly that you would spend approximately 1/3rd of your life with some people and not get to know them. Do you also see no value in small talk with friends and relatives?
-
It's not a false dichotomy: if the work they do is of the same quality in all measurements, clearly the choice is to go with whoever adds the most value by other means. Asshole or just not sociable (ie shy) doesn't matter (and I'd argue saying you don't find value in learning about your coworkers = asshole) - the obvious choice is to go with the guy with whom you can play a round of golf at the least. That doesn't mean you need to be best friends, and it doesn't mean all sociable people are Peter Keatings, it just means that being sociable adds value to the work you do when compared to not being sociable - especially in team environments such as a business with many employees. It's a hard lesson to learn for some people, and one I only fully grasped a couple years ago.
Hard day or week? Ask a few coworkers to go for a beer to unwind.
Just got in on a Monday? Take a few minutes to ask how a coworker's weekend was.
Crazy weather? Make a comment.
Hear a funny joke? Tell it to a coworker.
Watch the same tv shows? Chat about the story and see where they think it'll go.
It's easy and it builds up the team atmosphere and relaxes people so they can work better.
-
(In Response to Chris S's summary which posted while I was composing my previous post)
If all he is saying is that the man has the right to wonder about the rationality of a woman who says stop after intercourse has started, I can agree with that. I wouldn't agree with any sort of statement that the man has the right to continue because the woman is an irrational flake. I am not sure what he's trying to say here though.
That's what I mean, even his clarification podcast is still unclear, and I can't agree with him fully. Whereas Hsieh is extremely clear, and I can fully agree with her.
-
I'd question the teamwork ability of a workplace full of people who don't learn about each other, and the ability of a person without any social skills to move up the ladder. Yes the focus is on work, but you're working with other living people, not robots. You have zero interest in getting to know them? In business, you have to develop relationships with people, and making deals can often hinge on that relationship. If the choice is between an asshole or a friendly guy, and both products are the same, I'd go with the friendly guy because he adds value to the deal.
-
Amy Peikoff: should not force sex on a women from earlier consent; eg. young girls deciding they arent ready yet. Guy may be justified in his thoughts, but not justified in having sex, and why would he want to?. LP: conclusion: moral right to say no
LP continuing: many reasons for changing her mind: youth, discovers something bad about the man previously unknown, possibly something about the style of sex the man wants that puts her off, physical problems - eg cramps, grasp the sleaziness of the setup, realizing fantasy is not reality. Women in these situations have the right to refuse
Common setup of the above: groupies contesting to sleep with the athlete/music star. Not all are simply teenagers. They get to the bedroom and become afraid, reality hits them, they change their mind. Conclusion: immoral, because she voluntarily subjected herself to the irrational passion of the crowd. After involving the guy: moral right to withdraw consent, however, irresponsible and immoral for putting oneself in the situation where she has to withdraw consent in that fashion.
Re: Bryant case: wanted to defend Bryant based on loathing the people who like to prosecute successful people. Admits decision was based on feeling.
Should have said: she has moral right to change her mind, but police should not be allowed to charge him of rape if there is no evidence of rape. History of prior assaults or witnesses are a possibility to press charges. Otherwise, any man is at the mercy of any woman.
Husband and wife: escalation of sexual touching. Besides an absence of evidence of force, how could a wife's "No" be enough to put away a husband for rape? What does she have to say no to in order to make it rape - gives examples of escalation of sexual touching. Her "no's" could be signs of something else. People on internet: any and all "no's" are a monstrous evil = ridiculous.
Rational line = genital connection. Any voluntary instance of genital connection means that the woman can no longer say "yes" (I'm assuming he actually means "no" here because it doesn't make sense within the context of what he's talking about, but I copied his wording anyway), otherwise saying "no" in the midst of sex before climax, that "no" is not valid.
Conclusion: Disagrees that any time a woman says no, in any context, it absolutely must be upheld by the man. Examples above (husband and wife).
Finishes with Dartmouth example.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peikoff doesn't say that it's ok for a man to rape a woman. In fact he says that police should get involved when there's evidence of force used.
He also states more than once that a woman has the moral right to say "no" at any time, but qualifies that near the end by saying that at the point of actual voluntary intercourse and before climax, her "no" does not necessarily need to be respected by the man. I think he's unclear about those circumstances again.
I'm unsure of my position on this. By default, I'd say that sex is complicated (sometimes very complicated, even for Objectivists) and that it's always the better choice for the man is to agree to her emphatic "no" (or even her agreeing to his "no", however odd that may be). However, if the act was voluntarily entered into by both parties, and the transaction is cancelled by one party mid-way, I tend to think that the cancelling party is in the wrong (but that doesn't mean the other can or should continue). Comparing it to entering into a contract, there are very few times a party to the contract can decide to cancel on a whim. There has to be some unforeseen circumstances, or other conditions written into the contract before it is signed.
In the case of sex, obviously there's no actual contract, but I'd say that basic, proper cancellation circumstances would include physical pain or some outside interference by other parties. But to cancel the act based on a whim or a feeling is different and depends on the people involved and their relationship (pick-up at a bar, girlfriend/boyfriend, husband and wife). Certainly, the party wanting to continue should feel aggrieved, and I think in some cases may be in the right to finish or at least try to convince the cancelling party to change their mind. I think most times the two would stop and the continuing party would try to persuade the other to continue, and if it doesn't work then they would stop.
As I said, it's always better to stop. A lot of this depends on what people think "sex" and "consent" are, and I think that's where much of the disagreement here comes from. Consent is much more clear: no force or fraud. But once given voluntarily, where does "sex" stop and what constitutes withdrawal of consent? If one person orgasms and then wants to stop, where does that leave the other? The trade was initiated, but not finished to mutual satisfaction.
In any case, I think Peikoff still wasn't quite clear enough, whereas Hsieh's discussion was much clearer.
-
Tom, here is the podcast. From what I can tell of your arguments, you haven't even listened to it. So, at the risk of becoming this guy, here's all the facts to prove you are wrong about your arguments vs DH regarding this topic, no matter how much rationalization, argument from emotion, misrepresentation, and sophistry you use.
She begins to address anencephalics at 4:20.
She begins addressing anencephalic rights at 5:50.
Addressing eating anencephalics at 7:30.
Addressing morality of eating anencephalics at 8:40. Conclusion: immoral.
Possible legal prohibitions: 8:50.
Comparison to stem cell babies and medical experimentation: 8:56.
Addressing baby-back ribs: 9:30. Context: in jest and grossed-out, ie. dark humour.
Argument from repugnance (this is important for you): 11:00.
Discussing unsavory topics in philosophy discussions: 11:50.
Discussing basis for repugnance of eating anencephalics: 12:00.
Comparison to animal cruelty: 12:50
Pleasure in suffering of others and animal rights vs human rights: 12:30.
Cultural value of humanity vs indifference to eating anencephalics: 15:05
Eating human flesh vs violating rights: 15:30.
Quoting from her defense against CP:
I discussed the rights of the the severely mentally disabled in a May 2011 webcast. My basic view is that normal children, as well as mentally impaired children, have all the usual rights to care from their parents. However, in the rare cases of complete mental incapacity -- such as in the horrifically tragic cases of anencephalic babies, where only the brain stem exists -- rights cannot apply. Rights are not inherent in our DNA; they're based on the role of reason in man's survival. Hence, if a child is proven in court to have zero current or future capacity to reason -- or, as in the case of the anencephalic, not even the potential for consciousness -- then that child could be humanely enthanized by its parents.On hearing this view, any thinking person will immediately inquire about the logical implications of saying that anencephalic babies have no rights. Consider the extreme cases: Does that mean that they could be treated like any other animal, e.g. used for medical experiments, kept as a pet, or even eaten for food? (UGH!) The thought is repulsive, undoubtedly, but that's not a reason to refuse to think about it. An honest person's thinking is guided by facts, not emotions, and refusing to examine the logical implications of views under consideration is just evasion. (I was asked about this very issue in a discussion over dinner with some Objectivist friends prior to the webcast. It's a natural question.)
Never does she imply that courts grant rights, only that if a legal case of "do anencephalics have rights based on the derivation of rights from man's capacity to reason?" was brought to court, and the court found that anencephalics in fact do not have rights because they don't have any ability whatsoever to reason, then it would be legally permissable to euthanize an anencephalic baby, if it even lives long enough to do it. Morally it would be permissible as well.
-
Depends on that family's values, no? They just achieved the first step of a huge commitment that they may have been planning for awhile (or maybe not). Becoming pregnant is a product of the couple's love and shared sense of life - and if one isn't proud of what one produces or is, then I'd say there's a problem.
That sometimes pregnancy doesn't require much effort is the wrong way to think of being prideful of it or anything else. Depends on the people: for some people, math is hard and might take extra effort, and so solving a hard calculus problem or passing a test is something to take pride in. For myself, holding things in my right hand is hard and achieving certain fitness goals takes extra effort, so when I found something that helps me hold things in my hand, I'm now achieving those goals that others find very easy. Or take my enrolling in karate: I'm now a karateka and am proud of that because I've always wanted to practice that martial art. It wasn't hard to do, but I did it and put in a lot of effort.
So I think your facebook friend is being overly pessimistic about it, and thinking in terms of achievements diminishing in value because many other people can also achieve them. I can hit a 3 point NBA shot, but that doesn't diminish the value of an NBA player's ability to do it, or anyone else's. It's the implicit comparison to collective ability that's the fallacy there.
-
Without going into too much detail, my wife and I have had huge success with the "paleo" lifestyle. I've dropped 30lbs and am leaner and more defined than I ever was in my very active high school physique, and my wife is nearing 20lbs off with the goal of losing 40 more by August. We never get the afternoon lulls or that "I'm-so-hungry-I-feel-sick" feeling and feel overall way better than we did before starting it. We definitely have an improved sense of life and are better able to enjoy it.
I started it after Diana Hsieh had a lot of success with it, and I've been reading everything I can about the topic from various sites since then. I tend to think that if you want to be in "optimal" health, then you should eat the types of food we ate throughout our evolution. If you want to break it down to morality, that depends on context: some food is better than no food when one is starving. Cheap food is better than expensive food when one is on a tight budget. Then there are factors for taste, allergies, location, access and season. Now that I really understand how food affects my body, I choose not to eat all the foods I used to eat that contributed to my weight gain. However, if I know my next class is really boring and I'll fall asleep, I'll cram a couple donuts for a 3hr sugar rush. Or at the theatre I'll get M&M's and a pop, or a brownie for dessert, because I love the taste of all of those things and they're treats rather than staples. Also: hamburgers. Delicious.
We're also having a ton of fun cooking and experimenting with real foods. Once you get off the only-sugar-tastes-good train, there's a whole world of delicious foods that get ignored by everyone that you probably don't even know or think you'd enjoy.
-
Through FB and here are the first I've heard of this man, but he sounds awesome. His death is unfortunate, especially when he seemed so young still (late 50's?). I'm linking that speech to FB too, it's the best I've seen of the tea party speeches.
-
The DVD and Blu-ray are being recalled......
On the back of the film's retail DVD and Blu-ray the movie’s synopsis contradictorily states “AYN RAND’s timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice comes to life...”
This actually made it to the CBC and the CBC's Facebook feed (along with the typical comments about how bad the book is). Bad news for anything right of center is good news for the CBC.
-
We haven't gotten into the spirituality parts of karate. I guess different dojos practice different philosophies. The motto of my school here in Toronto (Northern Karate Schools) is towards more of a personal best philosophy (I can't exactly remember their phrasing).
It's possible that they get into this stuff at higher ranks, or during our Hanshi's monthly Quest Events, which I haven't attended. But I like those 5 kun you listed, it's good to keep those in mind.
-
I recently started a karate program at a local dojo and it's great. I've always wanted to learn martial arts, basically for as long as I can remember (since the time the Ninja Turtles and van Damme were popular), but my family held me back due to a physical disability and a weak cervical spine.
Although I'm merely a white belt (graduating to yellow very soon), I know that I want to run with this as far as possible, to just under the point of a "career" - a serious hobby guess. The physical and mental benefits I've gained in just the last month have been incredible, and I can say that I absolutely love knowing how to fight. Not to say that I ever actually want to be in a real fight, but just knowing what to do in case of an assault on me or my wife is freakin' awesome. It has been a big confidence booster.
It even seems to come fairly naturally, even while trying to slough off 8 years of sedentary living as well as getting my light handicap to work properly. I haven't tried sparring yet, but I think when I do I'll be able to handle myself pretty well.
So how popular are martial arts with people here? Has anyone had to use their abilities in real situations (probably the military and police folk have). If so, was it hard to remember your training? Does anyone practice a really obscure martial art?
I don't want this to become a "which style is better" thread, but rather how fun martial arts can be, and complimentary styles. After going for awhile with karate, I want to get into jiujitsu. I think the striking from karate would go really well with the groundwork of JJ or BJJ (what exactly is the difference there anyway, aside from the instructor's country?). I've also tried basic classes of tai chi and muay thai; tai chi seems too abstract to use in a fight, and muay thai seems to only focus on striking without any joint locks or defensive capability.
What say you?
-
I admit I made that mistake as well. My wife and I caught the screening in Toronto (finally!). It was a fairly well-polished low-budget film. I think the writing could've been better, as some of the dialogue seemed stiff - but maybe that was the actors' problem. Overall it was good, not terrible, and if any non-fans ever watch it, they might be interested in reading the book and the rest of Rand's work.
-
I would also like to point out the awesomeness of Otterbox Defender cases. I tend to drop my phone quite a bit more than average, and the case takes all the beating. The phone is in nearly mint condition aside from a bit of scratching on the back from dirt that somehow managed to get inside around this time last year. But even working on a dusty construction site this summer, there's no wear and tear on the phone, and even the Otterbox case is in fairly good condition. I even drop it on purpose to show people how good the thing is. It's probably the best form of technology insurance I've ever gotten, and well worth the ~$80 cost. Now if only I didn't have a stoooopid iPhone 3G and instead had a 4 or 4S
I'll stay out of the "which is better" arguments. I get enough of that in everyday life comparing iPhone to Blackberry, and I'm quite sick of it.
-
Until OWS can prove that money was "stolen" from the "99%", they're just a bunch of angry, anti-capitalist squatters. When they do get around to proving that (if ever, I think it's very doubtful they want to prove anything with fact), hopefully they show that the government's help is necessary for these businesses to "steal" from people.
I'm betting that when proven, it will show that more money is stolen from people through taxes and inflation than whatever these banks are accused of.
-
-
That's entirely not what they are seeking. The Tea Parties are far closer to less government than the OWS people.
When the life of your business is threatened and it's either pay the thug or die, you pay the thug. Unfortunately, some businesses seek thugs (ie. government) out to go after other business, and they are as bad as the thugs in government.
Win $10,000 in guns and gear - AR-15, Glock 17, etc
in Recreation and The Good Life
Posted
Only open to Americans