[Intrusion Attempt]

Well, I just got the intrusion attempt again a while ago. So I decided to follow your advice and download Firefox. So I guess I'm in the "in" crowd with Firefox, now.

[Why are men's clothing so boring?]

I like motorcycling attire too, although my tastes in it may differ...

That's a beautiful bike, too. I wonder if anyone still makes bikes with a similar design.

[My art]

I did enjoy these. Thanks. I liked the ones that were less cartoonish best. Some of your ladies are pretty sexy. I do have one question though..

WTF? lol..

[Michael Jackson Is Building A Mosque]

I agree with you, Ifat. I loved his music when I was a kid in the 80's. I remember being 3 or 4 years old, and my friend, who was a year or two older than me, had the thriller video-- but I was too scared to watch it! Also, in kindergarten or first grade, my class went to the local radio station (I grew up in a small town in Texas, and we had one radio station, "Shine All Nine"). The DJ asked if any of us had any requests.. He said, "we have anything you could possibly think of!" (expecting us to say something lame). So I said, "Do you have anything by Michael Jackson?" And he just gave me a look like, "where did you learn that dirty word?!" They didn't have anything. That was too edgy, I guess!

It's very sad what happened to him. I think some people laugh just to break the tension, because it's so disturbing-- which is understandable, and I laugh sometimes too, for that reason. But other people laugh because they hate him for being so successful, and it makes them happy to see someone who used to be great now totally broken. I wouldn't assume that of people on this message board, but I have seen it a lot in the general culture.

I'm going to revive a long dead subject by posting here, but this is important to me. I don't find the subject of Michael Jackson's mental destruction to be funny at all. He was called "The king of pop" for a reason, his music had fire and soul, he was an amazing dancer and a very talented song writer. Ever listened to his early songs? ("Thriller", "Do you remember the time", "The way you make me feel", "black and white", "give in to me" and more). I am a big fan and I think what happened to him is very sad. And I also don't understand who or what got to him to cause such tremendous damage, but it must be something powerful and scary.

[Hobbies]

I am looking to fill some downtime of mine with a new hobby. If you would like, list some of your favorite hobbies so I can get a few ideas. Thanks.

Writing poetry, playing guitar, trying to learn to read piano sheet music, memorizing mathematical formulas, learning a second language (books on tape/cd allow you to take this kind of hobby with you on otherwise non-productive car trips!), painting, dancing...

[Why are men's clothing so boring?]

It's sort of ironic that this topic of jeans has come up, because I just recently bought the first pair of jeans I've owned since elementary school (I bought them for work). Previously, I'd thought of jeans as hot, heavy, ugly, and as usually cutting off the circulation in my crotch. But these are a newer brand, and they are actually pretty comfortable, and they do have a certain '40s type of look to them. I've even worn them several times outside of work. : )

As to different colors of jeans-- green, red, pink, etc.. That was actually pretty popular in the 80's.

[The Golden Rule]

I don't see anything in the rule which requires treating everybody else as equals or as you in fact should be treated. I think the rule is inherently contextual.

For instance, the judge isn't supposed to treat the convicted criminal as if he were a law-abiding judge, he IS supposed to treat the criminal in the same manner as he would want a judge to treat himself, were he a convicted criminal.

Thus, if the judge for instance is about to sentence the criminal to a long term just because he doesn't like the tie he is wearing, if he applies the rule he will realize that if he were ever convicted of a crime, he would never want HIS sentence dependant on whatever tie he happened to wear. The judge would thus hopefully refrain from sentencing on the basis of the convicted criminal's tie on that basis.

Um, if the judge were being convicted of a crime, why would he want anything besides for his conviction to be overturned? Isn't "inherently contextual" a contradiction in terms?

[New rationalists always seduced by the dark side]

Being open-minded is simply looking at both sides of the issue before making a judgment or an opinion. It's not about staying undecided. Closed-minded is when you study one side withouth looking at it from the other side before adopting your own view. Like say you were taught something (girls are evil) by your parents and never bother questioning their word. Being open-minded also means you can re-examine your views on certain things with skepticism.

Did you read the AR quote from my post above? The term "open-minded" does mean staying undecided. When you decide, you refuse to consider that the opposing view point is true. That doesn't mean that your mind doesn't stay active, just that it's not open to the possibility that it is wrong-- i.e., it is not skeptical of the things that it knows.

For example.. Suppose you're confronted with the problem-- does 2+2=4, or not? Based on your current context of knowledge, do you really have to stop and look at both sides of the issue before making a judgment on this? You know that four is four units of one, or two units of two, or one unit of three and one unit of one, etc. And you know that A=A. To propose that 2+2=non-4 is to utter a contradiction. Contradictions are metaphysically impossible and epistemologically worthless. You don't have to go through a separate act of proving this every time you make the judgment 2+2=4. You do not need to doubt your judgment-- in fact, you need to not doubt it, because doing so would be a waste of time.

But, you don't then become passive with this knowledge. You keep thinking.. keep gaining deeper insights into what it means to say 2+2=4, and what significance it has in combination with everything else you know, and all the new knowledge you acquire, etc.

The important question is not: Are you open-minded, or closed-minded? It is: Are you active-minded, or passive-minded?

[Why are men's clothing so boring?]

I notice that a few here have objected to 1930's style on the grounds that it would be silly or out of place. I think the same thing (though I wouldn't put it in quite those terms), but had to do a bit of thinking on the subject because I agree with Dismuke as well. How, then, can it be out of place, and at the same time desperately needed?

Because convention is not necessarily utilitarian (in the generic or aesthetic sense)?

My conclusion is that, stylistic though they are, these fashions are not meant for the 21st century. While we desperately need the kind of style that is borne of the values present in that era, it is not enough to merely revive it.

I agree. But I haven't seen anyone here suggest that that style be merely revived. Dismuke, in fact, has argued against that at length in several posts. A strict revival of the style for some things that are still applicable might be good as a preliminary step to moving forward, but it's certainly not some kind of intrinsic ideal. (Personally, I like the fashions of the late 19th century to the 1920's best. But the 30's and 40's and even the 50's had their charms, too. The 60's and 70's were just queasy. I like some 80's fashion. The 90's were a queasy mix of 60's/70's "retro" and "ghetto-fabulous." Right now is a strange kind of cultural limbo. It's like it's anyone's game, now. )

The context has changed in the last 70 years, and not only because the nihilists have wiped so much out. It has also changed because technology has progressed. Materials science has progressed. The objects of everyday life have changed; suit pockets no longer need to accommodate pocket watches. They might accommodate Ipods. Fitness has been discovered; people often walk further or work out during the day.

Exercise was invented in the 1960's? I think, if anything (although maybe you know something I don't know), improvements in modern fitness techniques have kept things even at best. In the early part of the 20'th century, America was still mostly an industrial economy. There was a lot of manual labor-- people had to sweat and work their asses off all day long to earn their bread. Now it's said to be more of a service economy-- people sit in front of a desk all day. So if you're making an argument for a change in people's shape, I'm not sure that fitness being "discovered" is the proper fact to note. Sportsmanship was probably valued more in the early 20th century than it is today. The main difference about people's shapes now is that there are a lot more overweight people. If anything, designers should work on designing clothes that make heftier set people look more dignified (but in fact, overweight people in the '30s looked far more dignified than they do today, based on what I've seen). If your argument is simply that clothes that people wear while they exercise should be more modern, that's undoubtedly true. But, are exercise clothes really that different now? I know the shoes are much better now. But sweatpants, t-shirts, and headbands still look pretty much the same to me as pictures I've seen from the 30's.

New forms of entertainment have been created. The job landscape has changed drastically: people don't hold the same jobs they did in that era. There are entirely new jobs which did not exist back then. As unrelated to fashion as these things may seem, they all have their influences; fashion is built around the lives of the people who wear the clothes (it is that way in all utilitarian/aesthetic industries).

I don't think that seems unrelated to fashion. I think you're totally right.

Yes, we need to revive the values of 1930's fashion - not 1930's fashion itself. That would be as out of place as Doric columns on Howard Roark's buildings.

But, one thing you might be overlooking is-- 1930's fashion was derived from 1930's values, to a large extent. The thing I think you're suggesting that people avoid is to indiscriminately incorporate 1930's fashions into their wardrobe without any regard to context. That would be no better than what people do now-- indiscriminately incorporating modern fashions into their wardrobe without any regard to context (as has been nicely illustrated in this thread already). I agree with that, 100%. Although I'm not the expert on etiquette that some people here are, my understanding is that it would be as offensive to wear a pair of knickerbockers to a formal event as it would be to wear blue jeans.

What drives me crazy is the sight of so-called "creative" and "artistic" types who will commit acts such as wearing a nice suit with tennis shoes as some sort of fashion statement - something I consider to be very nihilistic. (Last time I was in New York, I saw people in business suits who put on sneakers for their walk home, presumably for comfort. While ridiculous looking, I wouldn't necessarily consider those individuals to be nihilists).

Recently I watched a documentary from 1992 called James Cagney: Top of the World, hosted by Michael J. Fox. Actually, I watched it because I like Michael J. Fox, not James Cagney (I never much liked gangster movies, even ones from the '30s). But I thought of Mr. Fox's outfit when you said that, because he was wearing these bright blue denim pants, with a dress shirt, tie, and dress jacket. Lol, it was at least somewhat distracting. I wouldn't really call it nihilistic, though. I think it's maybe possible that some people can "pull off" looks that would be nihilistic for other people? Or may there be some situations where a hybrid of formal and casual attire is appropriate?

[Why are men's clothing so boring?]

According to their lowest common denominator form of egalitarianism, going to a job interview, buying a house, getting married, graduating from college, the occasion of somebody's birthday or wedding anniversary, being a guest of or being granted an appointment with a stranger who is, in some way, accomplished, attending a gathering of highly accomplished people, going on a date with one's girlfriend/boyfriend - all of these things fall into the exact same common category of "things that people do" as does going to the bathroom. As such, they are all of equal existential significance and require no additional degree of awe, respect, emotion or ceremony whatsoever.

Putting it like that really exposes what a vast amount of the simple pleasures of life nihilists deny for themselves (ie, the pleasure of pomp and circumstance, and getting dressed up in your best clothes for a formal event, and to enjoy seeing people you like and care about do the same, etc)-- and concretizes what a prudish, ascetic way of life nihilism really is. How ironic and hypocritical those cynical egalitarians are, on so many levels. Thinking about it this way almost makes me feel bad for them. I guess there is some justice in things, after all.

[The origin of rights]

Just that man does not have rights in the same sense as he has two arms or has rationality. The word "grant" seems to indicate that they're something someone else gives, and it might be misconstrued as an arbitrary granting; so, I understand your objection. OTOH, the act of recognition (objective recognition) (for which some might use the word 'grant') is part of the nature of rights.

My individual rights are the principle of other people not forcing me to do certain things. I don't object to saying "every man has rights" but think it is really a way of saying "in a moral social system, every man ought to have rights".

I understand the phrase "man has individual rights" to be an abbreviation of "man has a moral claim to individual rights." I think it's something a man always "has" as a potentiality-- it is the identification that it is a fact about mans nature that, whenever he is in a social circumstance, it is morally obligatory for him to demand individual rights for himself and recognize them in others.

[New rationalists always seduced by the dark side]

I would like to know why you say that. As I and my dictionary seem to understand the word, it simply means the willingness to consider any idea at all in utter seriousness--but that doesn't mean to accept it as true nor does it mean to never condemn or ridicule after due consideration.

I would consider it the very mark of reason over emotionalism and dogmatism.

There is an excellent statement of AR's position on this in her essay "Philosophical Detection." It appears in Philosophy: Who Needs It on pg 21, and The Ayn Rand Letter on pg 292.

One further suggestion: if you undertake the task of philosophical detection, drop the dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having "a wide open mind." That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A "closed mind" is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a "closed" mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.

What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind," but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.

If you keep an active mind, you will discover (assuming that you started with common-sense rationality) that every challenge you examine will strengthen your convictions, that the conscious, reasoned rejection of false theories will help you to clarify and amplify the true ones, that your ideological enemies will make you invulnerable by providing countless demonstrations of their own impotence.

No, you will not have to keep your mind eternally open to the task of examining every new variant of the same old falsehoods. You will discover that they are variants of attacks on certain philosophical essentials—and that the entire, gigantic battle of philosophy (and of human history) revolves around the upholding or the destruction of these essentials. You will learn to recognize at a glance a given theory's stand on these essentials, and to reject the attacks without lengthy consideration—because you will know (and will be able to prove) in what way any given attack, old or new, is made of contradictions and "stolen concepts." [Footnote from PWNI: The "stolen concept" fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends. See The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. II, No. 1, January 1963.]

I mean that Nietzsche lived his philosophy to the extent that it could be lived, which is evidence in itself that he took ideas seriously. That is why I love him. I also love/hate him beacuse of the content of his ideas.

Is it possible for a person not to live according to what he believes, to the extent that it is possible? Personally, I find that I often love Nietzsche as a writer and hate him as a philosopher. He didn't take ideas seriously in the sense that he was often terribly inconsistent, and incomplete in his ideas. He was a German Romanticist, after all.

[New rationalists always seduced by the dark side]

Considering Bush’s recent use of veto power, happenings in church/state, abortion rights, the manipulation of Christian voters to tolerate war policies in the Mid-East, and tighter controls on where you can express what ideas, I take Christians to be far less benign than you. ESPECIALLY since viewed as the defenders of a free market.

I consider myself more liberal than conservative, if we are to cast political views in that inadequate spectrum.

Well, I suggest that you read the article I linked to. Just because religion is becoming increasingly dangerous politically, it doesn't necessarily follow that all Christians, as individuals, are more evil than the liberals, outside of their personal context. I think Leonard Peikoff's DIM hypothesis is certainly something to take into account, as well. But, that idea is still pretty new for me, and I'm still chewing on the tidbits I've heard from it so far.

It needs people who think that ideas actually matter, and that to believe something means to live it. Which is actually the reason I love Nietzsche as much as I hate him--god rest his soul.

Hm.. what exactly do you mean by that? (Are you saying that you love/hate Nietzsche because you think his ideas matter, or because you think he thought ideas matter, or that he lived what he believed, or that he thought to "believe" means "to live," or something else?)

[New rationalists always seduced by the dark side]

Although both are evils, it would appear that the second evil is far worse than the first. How does one fight this de-railing on the train tracks to objectivism? Do any newborn rationals stand a chance with such an enemy standing at the exit door of religion?

There is an interesting article by Andrew Bernstein called Villainy: An Analysis of the Nature of Evil, in which he compares various types of philosophies including Christian and Statist, and rates which ones he thinks are more evil and why.

But if it's true that collectivism/liberalism/nihilism is worse than modern western religion (and I think that's true, at least, for now), then it's possible that those abandoning religion in favor of nihilism are not being "derailed," but were in fact never on the right path to begin with. Perhaps it's the case that the persistent clash between their world view and reality simply provoked them to give up on having a world view at all.

Personally, I've never known any budding Objectivists who turned into nihilists. I've come across a few flakey types who dabbled in Objectivism among two dozen other things before deciding on nihilism. But I never would have called them budding Objectivists. They were never even capable of taking it seriously. It was flavor of the month to them. (But that's just my own experience with people).

[The origin of rights]

An important fact about the nature of rights is that there is no such thing as a right to violate the rights of others. So, if diseased people or death-breathing aliens are restricted from certain actions that place other people at risk, that is not a loss of rights on their part.

If someone with a deadly disease is executed and all of his property seized by the state because of the potential risk he might pose to people, that would constitute a loss of individual rights.

[Does how your partner views sex affect your view of the relationship?]

The word love is contextually unattached. Therefore is useless

The term value connotes an actual identifiable assessment, or range.

i.e. I value you for these reasons.

Do you mean that the word "love" is necessarily contextually unattached, regardless of context? Or do you mean that a specific poster in this thread has used the term love in a way that is contextually unattached? Ironically, this statement seems to lack the context necessary for it to be understood..

But, personally, I've gained a lot from AR's discussions of "love" in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

The concept "love" is formed by isolating two or more instances of the appropriate psychological process, then retaining its distinguishing characteristics (an emotion proceeding from the evaluation of an existent as a positive value and as a source of pleasure) and omitting the object and the measurements of the process's intensity.

The object may be a thing, an event, an activity, a condition or a person. The intensity varies according to one's evaluation of the object, as, for instance, in such cases as one's love for ice cream, or for parties, or for reading, or for freedom, or for the person one marries. The concept "love" subsumes a vast range of values and, consequently, of intensity: it extends from the lower levels (designated by the sub-category "liking") to the higher level (designated by the sub-category "affection," which is applicable only in regard to persons) to the highest level, which includes romantic love.

[The origin of rights]

A sentient/volitional/cognitive species that, as an aspect of their physiology, exhaled sarin or mustard gas would make a mutual recognization of rights nigh impossible, would it not?

Another thing that I think has to be factored in, besides cognition/volition, is compatibility of interests. Even if Human A receives no benefit from the existence of Human B, B's mere existence is not lethal to A. Different Creatures, on the other hand, may be biologically incompatible.

Hm, well, how about humans who carry a deadly, infectious disease? Do they loose their individual rights because of it?

[Stem Cell Research]

Did you read the "out" article you linked to? It specifically answers that question.

Like it or not, the government holds a monopoly on many scientific endeavors. It must either fund science on objective (non-religious) criteria, or not fund it at all. Any middle ground violates the rights of those researchers whose legitimate projects fail to receive federal funding. Because then they can't compete with the firms that do receive funding.

That's not to imply that government funding of research, even by relatively objective standards, doesn't violate the rights of scientits, too. Just that discriminating against certain valuable research for religious reasons while funding other research is worse. It's not like the government is trying to break into the business of funding medical research. It already does fund medical research, and this is legislation preventing it from funding a specific type of research.

He says it better in the article.

"The government should get out of the business of funding science. But so long as it is involved, it must scrupulously respect the separation of Church and State. Its funding decisions must be made on rationally demonstrable, not faith-based, grounds. Bush's veto clearly violates this principle."

I get very angry when they start taking about morality. It is unethical to impede potential advances that could heal disease, relieve the suffering, and save lives of fully developed human beings. The moral status of a 150-to-200-cell mass should not take precedence over responsible scientific inquiry.

I agree. Thanks for the info. What is the status of stem cell research in Canada, compared to the US?

[Intrusion Attempt]

I think someone posted an exploit in an iFrame that attempts to hack users via the FMW exploit.

I have removed the exploit (just now) and will try to determine how to prevent it.

Your computer should be safe if you installed the Microsoft FMW exploit fix released a few months ago. (Edit: or just use Firefox)

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data...exploit.56.html

This thing has shown up on mine too, now. I followed the link you gave, but I didn't really understand the technical language in the description. Is this "exploit" a virus that can infect our computers? I didn't know you could get a computer virus from just opening a webpage, without downloading anything.

How do we find out if our computer has been infected with this virus, and if it has, how do we get rid of it? What exacly does the virus do? I don't know much about computer viruses. My "sbc yahoo internet protection" software didn't detect any viruses, but if I've been infected, can it change my antivirus software so that it's indetectable? It wasn't that program that alerted me to the "exploit" intrusion-- it was one I didn't even know I had (maybe it was the virus itself, I really have no idea, but I can't get that screen to show up again). Hm, so what should I do? I'm running internet explorer.

[What are your favorite TV shows?]

I watched Twin Peaks basically continuously over about three and a half days. I liked a lot of it, but I remember really hating the ending. It was too surreal and unsatisfying, even for David Lynch.

-Q

Not only that, but specifically and repulsively malevolent. I've met a lot of Twin Peaks fans, but I've never met anyone who liked the ending.

[Stem Cell Research]

Did you read the "out" article you linked to? It specifically answers that question.

Like it or not, the government holds a monopoly on many scientific endeavors. It must either fund science on objective (non-religious) criteria, or not fund it at all. Any middle ground violates the rights of those researchers whose legitimate projects fail to receive federal funding. Because then they can't compete with the firms that do receive funding.

[What are your favorite TV shows?]

Okay, I'll add some of mine, although.. it looks pretty familiar in comparison to the rest of the thread. : )

House-- Well, I hate bandwagons, but this is one that deserves to be jumped on. Likewise, I hate medical dramas, but this is one that deserves to be watched. I like it for these reasons-- great, politically incorrect, humorous, often philosophically relevant writing; first rate acting (usually); good music! (I first started watching the show because I'd seen people praising it on Objectivist forums, but when I watched the first episode I was astonished that "Teardrop" by Massive Attack, which is one of my favorite songs, is the theme song, although I was disappointed that Elizabeth Fraser's amazing vocal parts are absent. Since then I've heard Goldfrapp, and lots of other interesting, underrated musical groups displayed on the show.) This is one show that lives up to the hype.

The Family Guy-- Okay, absurdist, satirical comedy is kind of a cop-out. But the smart baby is funny-- some of the jokes are socially relevant. Some of the subjects are interesting. This one can make me laugh out loud. It's slapstick, but, there are some funny gags sometimes.

South Park-- Essentially, the same thing as Family Guy. The political orientation of this show has been called "nihilistic conservatism." Some things about South Park are extremely offensive, but some are refreshing and funny. I take it in small doses, but I'll watch this show sometimes, and laugh.

(Rod Serling's) The Twilight Zone-- Alright, this one is another exception (which might be a first clue to why I don't watch much TV), because I am not usually a science fiction fan. But there were some interesting stories on The Twilight Zone, sometimes with interesting, individualist leaning social insights.

Twin Peaks-- This was David Lynch and Mark Frost's strange and quirky mystery series. Angelo Badalamenti provided a great soundtrack. There were some phenomenal actors involved in it. Interesting camera work and lighting, etc. The story was sometimes an intriguing, Sherlock Holmes type mystery story-- sometimes a completely loopy, mystical, absurdist/modernist abortion. A real mixed bag, but worth watching, I think, if for no other reason than that it was so unusual for network television.

The Cosby Show-- Great comedy. Benevolent sense of life. Was funny when I was a little kid, and is still funny today.

Seinfeld-- This show was a symphony of comedy. I don't know any other program that put so much effort into weaving such intricate, hilarious situations. The actors on this show really had their timing down. This is how the pros did comedy. Nothing on TV today even comes close to this-- after the extremely disappointing series finale of Seinfeld, a gaping hole was left in prime-time comedy. Thankfully, there are lots of re-runs. These episodes are funny even after I've seen them a few times.

[The origin of rights]

Well, I don't know if that's the case. But as the situation where there are no benefits whatsoever from trading with other rational beings is very unlikely, it's not a big deal anyway. I just think that if there was no benefit whatsoever to humans for respecting "Creature A's" rights, then we should not do so, because it would be a sacrifice to go out of our way while getting nothing in return.

This last would only be an issue if they were unable to violate our rights in any meaningful manner, but if they are rational beings they probably could..

This does seem to be a pragmatic approach. Since reationality and volition are the source of rights, any type of "creature" that posseses these has rights.

I don't see why "Creature A" in your example couldn't just as easily be "Human A." IE, would you argue that if it were the case that no discernable or significant benefit could be accrued from trading with a specific human being, that that human would then lose his claim to individual rights? If so, how would this capacity for "benefit" be calculated? Would it be derived from some type of principles, or mere expedience, on a case-by-case basis? If some creatures possesing reason and volition have rights and some don't, why wouldn't this apply to people within the human species, too?

How about mentally handicapped people, who are unable to produce anything on their own? Would you argue that these people forfeit any claim to individual rights, so that as long as someone is willing to keep them alive, he can then do anything he wants to them without being unethical?

[Why are men's clothing so boring?]

Did it used to be? If so, I can understand having standards for "walking down the street" clothing other than "genetalia appropriately covered". If it never was considered social intercourse simply to walk past someone on the street, then you should be applying my standard, namely the "why are you even intruding on their personal space by looking at them?" standard. Frankly, that's rude, it implies intimacy you have no right to assume.

Wait a second.. Are you saying that you have no right to look at someone you don't know on the street? Now, maybe I'm just a simple country boy from rural Texas, but I don't see what the problem is in being friendly to strangers. I'm not saying, be a Peter Keating and make eye contact with every person in your vicinity.. Most of the time I don't notice people as I walk by, because I'm usually busy concentrating on some problem or puzzle. But if someone catches my eye-- if they're nicely dressed, or unusually attractive, or just look interesting for some reason, I don't hesitate to look at them, maybe smile, maybe even give them a nod or a, "How do you do." Usually the other person walks away smiling, too. I don't see how this is rude. If someone returned my friendly gesture with a sneer or a, "Get out of my face!" I would think that would be slightly rude (though, being interested in such anomalies and surprises, I probably wouldn't personally be offended, and would probably bust out laughing as soon as he were out of sight). That's never happened to me, but if I were indeed guilty of violating his rights by looking at him, I guess he would be justified.

I view dressing up to go to a college class in the same light that I would dressing up before the maid comes over: a sign of impending neurosis.

Wow. I guess they better update the DSM.

Personally, I think it's fun to dress up. My friends have laughed at me for getting dressed up to run to the grocery store. I don't see why not-- I feel like I'm doing something, then. : ) I don't have to. I can quit anytime. Really!

Anyhow, I've got a few suits that consistently get, "wow, nice suit!"

You know, I've been thinking about it since this thread began. I notice that I've gotten proportionately much more frequent compliments on the way I'm dressed from fellow Objectivists than most normal people I meet. At the past several meetings of the Houston Objectivism Society, different people have individually said they liked what I was wearing, which almost never happens to me normally (and I wasn't wearing anything explicitly "Objectivist," like an ARI t-shirt, just regular, nice clothes). I hadn't thought of it before, but I think that says something about 1) the superior manners of Objectivists, because they will openly acknowledge someone if he has done something they appreciate, even a small thing like that, and 2) sense of life-- picking out clothes might be slightly mundane, but it is an aesthetic issue, and you can express something with your clothes which can resonate with someone's sense of life evaluations, to the degree that they will notice it as something unusual enough to comment on.

[Why are men's clothing so boring?]

Personally, if I saw anyone dressed in the same clothes from the 30s like in that link, I would have to contain my laughter. Rediculous.

Hm, as someone who likes vintage clothes myself (as well as some new clothes, too), I think you're being a little unfair. For one thing, in the '30s (for example), people would have a tailor who would fit their clothes especially for them. And they would have an endless variety of authentic '30s clothes to choose from because it was the '30s. Nowadays, if you want to wear these clothes-- your selection is more limited. You have to forage through resale shop bins overstocked with hundreds of articles of clothes from every era in American history (probably mostly '60s and '70s) and hope you find something 1) from the era you like 2) that you happen to like in particular 3) that fits you 4) that's still in good shape, etc etc. In my experience of looking for vintage clothes, it is rare i will find even one article of clothing from a particular era that is pre-'50s, and the chances of it fitting the other criteria I mentioned as well are slimmer than slim. So most people I know that wear vintage clothes mix something vintage with newer clothes in whatever combinations look good.

But that particular link, as I understood from the description at the site, was photos from a specifically period costume party. So I would imagine the participants there scoured their wardrobe to put together exclusively '30s outfits, to wear to the event. Some of them didn't look so hot-- not because the clothes are dated, but because they didn't match the shape and color of the person, or didn't even match themselves, or were horribly the wrong size. But other people in the pictures looked pretty good.

Even if it had been the case that everyone at that particular site looked like a clown, that wouldn't mean that wearing vintage clothes is necessarily tacky or ridiculous. People can wear vintage outfits that look perfectly appropriate and attractive. It's not necessarily shocking, if done right. Depending on where you live, and if you ever watch TV, you probably see people wearing vintage style clothes all the time without even noticing it. Certain celebrities love vintage designs, and ask their favorite designers to make them new clothes in a similar style. It comes and goes with fads.

Wow, that imaginary situation that you created sure played out poorly for me.

Well, you kind of deserved it. You were being an imaginary jerk to those people.