Iudicious

Christ, so now what I find funny isn't up to me anymore? Do we have a list of Objectivism-safe comedians and topics of humor, nelli?

Based on the discussion thus far, I would agree with your disagreement. I was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, being rather rash when I included that line. That rashness comes from a tendency that I've seen in some places to try to use a great deal of philosophizing to answer questions that require at least some science. 
 
There is certainly a great deal of philosophy underpinning science, and to rely on our mode of scientific inquiry to answer any question at all requires a significant philosophical underpinning, whether the scientists carrying out that process of scientific inquiry are aware of that philosophical foundation or not. What I should have said was this:
 
Philosophy alone cannot provide us with an answer to this question - there is good reason to believe that the universe, on a macroscopic scale, may be infinite or finite, and significant evidence and mathematical theory supporting either conclusion, and, furthermore, there is significant evidence supporting the notion that there is a finite, discrete unit at which one cannot meaningfully get smaller (i.e. there are no more fundamental units than some specific set which has not yet been fully discovered). 
 
Philosophy, however, certainly plays a part here, and can offer guidance in our lines of inquiry in this question, and certainly there may be philosophical implications of whatever science may eventually ascertain to be the reality of our universe, whether finite or infinite. 

The best way to discover a passion, I've found, is to be open to new things. Try as many new things as possible, even things that sound strange to you or that you might not normally be inclined to try. When you find a few things you like, stick with those things, try harder, get good at them. 
 
Passions aren't found by introspection. They simply aren't. A passion is fundamentally an interaction between your values, your ego, and the outside world. The only way to discover a passion is by doing. And often times, it takes people a lot of time. I know many people who discovered their passion in high school. I did not. I only found mine once I was in college, and only then after being in college for a couple of years. I know people who've been in college as long as I have, and they still haven't found their passion. 
 
There's no harm in reading more about philosophy - and if it's something you enjoy, I'd definitely recommend that you explore the full breadth of the field, not just Rand's work, but all who came before and after her - but if you don't think that's your passion, there's no lecture, technique, or philosophy or self-help book that is going to get you closer to your passion than simply finding new things and trying them.
 
Start simple. Take electives in school that sound interesting to you. Do things in your daily life that are different for you - e.g. cook for yourself, go exercising, visit a park, go to a show. Find books on topics you don't know anything about and read. If you have a topic in mind that seems particularly interesting to you, find a journal on it. Nature Magazine, a very well respected journal in the sciences, has a massive collection of different publications for different fields. If you find a field that is of particular interest to you, see if you can pick up some old issues or find some articles online from the publication that's in the field that interests you - read the articles, take note of things you don't understand or want to learn more about, and educate yourself. http://www.nature.com/siteindex/index.html
 
Good luck.

All of the quotes below are from the OP, CptnChan
 
 
Consider a couple things here:
 
1. I'm not actually sure that you're correct that these are more prolific than people who create "new" content.
2. Critics, reviewers, and game-streamers are delivering an actual product/service. They are content creators. The fact that you don't like their content doesn't actually mean anything - they are delivering value to someone. 
 
 
 
Except you're wrong here. That streamer is delivering content. People watch his channel, as opposed to other channels, because they enjoy watching him play, they enjoy listening to him talk as he plays, they enjoy the content he has created. What he has created is separate from the game he is playing - and it is content that clearly a lot of people enjoy.
 
Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is not content or that value has not been created.
 
I personally enjoy watching game streams. I've done it a lot lately, in fact, because I don't have time to play a lot of video games, but it's quite fun to watch them being played while I do my work. When I was a kid, I used to watch my friends play games more than I played them myself - that was enjoyable for me. That's how it is for a lot of people. So these game streamers are creating content, both by doing what they're doing, and by adding value in the form of the commentary and such that they add to their streams and their videos.
 
 
No, but judging by the rest of your post, you sure would like it to.
 
 
 
These reaction videos get millions of views usually because they're funny or because the people involved have personalities that people enjoy listening to or watching. It's literally the same thing as morning talk shows. People tune in because the reactions are funny, the conversations are interesting, and the personalities are fun to listen to/watch.
 
This type of entertainment is highly accessible. It doesn't require a lot of time - so there's a low barrier to entry, a low up front cost - and it's usually humorous, entertaining, enlightening, easily understandable, et cetera, so a high amount of value is obtained from it. The fact that you characterize this kind of entertainment as having nothing of interesting and contributing nothing doesn't make it so - it could very well be that you've seen a few videos and simply generalized. 
 
Keep in mind here - if value was not being gained by watching the videos, they would not be getting watched so much. People are mostly rational actors, if simplistic ones. Viewers tend to go for entertainment that has a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. Which explains your next contention:
 
 
Historically, art has a high barrier of entry. It takes a lot of work to get into it. This isn't a new phenomena - it's ages old. Did you ever learn about Shakespeare? One of the reasons we discuss Shakespeare still today is because he wrote plays that were easily accessible to the general public. Low barrier of entry, with a fair amount of very low brow wit - some of it was frankly even slapstick. So, low barrier of entry, high entertainment value. 
 
That is how it has always been. The most complex art historically has been reserved mostly for nobles, the rich, the clergy, and various other people who had the time and money to kill to appreciate it, while lower entertainment was preferred by the masses - because it had a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. 
 
This doesn't mean that one is better than the other, nor does it indicate anything particular about people. The fact is, everyone has their passions and their interests - and outside of their passions and interests, they're not likely to invest a whole lot of time into something. Why would you expect a creative work of art to have millions of views? Of course it wouldn't. Because the ONLY people who gain something from it are people who are passionate about art in the first place - so people who are passionate about, say, plants or math (me!) would spend hours on plant videos, but they wouldn't spend hours on creative, artistic videos - rather, I'd be likely to watch a low brow video that has a high entertainment pay off and a low barrier to entry, or else spend my time on the things I actually care about. 
 
 
 
 
The reason most people don't care is because you're stating the blatantly obvious.
 
What you've said amounts to this:
 
People, in general, won't put in the time and energy to understand and appreciate things that they don't have any previously existing interest in, and would rather enjoy something that doesn't demand so much of them.
 
This is obvious. Why would people - the majority of whom have working lives, passions, interests, and goals which they are already putting a significant amount of time into - spend extra time on something that isn't their interest? Just because you think something artistic on youtube is worthwhile doesn't mean others will. Yeah, a lot of work went into it - and that work pays off to the people who have an existing interest in it. But for everyone else, there's just a high barrier of entry and something that's demanding a lot more time from them than they have to be spending, for a minimal payoff.
 
 
 
Nobody is living off of other people's content. You're creating an issue where none exists. Just because you don't like some content, doesn't mean that the people who made that content are parasites. 
 
 
 
 
 
Beyond ALL of that, consider this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium
https://www.youtube.com/user/AsapSCIENCE
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DIY

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCduKuJToxWPizJ7I2E6n1kA

 
 
This is just a very small sampling of original content on youtube with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views. Your notion that people aren't paying attention to original content is patently wrong - they're just not paying attention to the content you care about. Which makes sense. You pay attention to that content because it's of value to you, so the barrier to entry isn't a big deal. But for people who have no interest in it? The barrier to entry IS a big deal, so they're naturally gonna pay attention to things that either A. are of interest to them or B. have a low barrier to entry (cat videos, reaction videos, et cetera)

All of the quotes below are from the OP, CptnChan
 
 
Consider a couple things here:
 
1. I'm not actually sure that you're correct that these are more prolific than people who create "new" content.
2. Critics, reviewers, and game-streamers are delivering an actual product/service. They are content creators. The fact that you don't like their content doesn't actually mean anything - they are delivering value to someone. 
 
 
 
Except you're wrong here. That streamer is delivering content. People watch his channel, as opposed to other channels, because they enjoy watching him play, they enjoy listening to him talk as he plays, they enjoy the content he has created. What he has created is separate from the game he is playing - and it is content that clearly a lot of people enjoy.
 
Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is not content or that value has not been created.
 
I personally enjoy watching game streams. I've done it a lot lately, in fact, because I don't have time to play a lot of video games, but it's quite fun to watch them being played while I do my work. When I was a kid, I used to watch my friends play games more than I played them myself - that was enjoyable for me. That's how it is for a lot of people. So these game streamers are creating content, both by doing what they're doing, and by adding value in the form of the commentary and such that they add to their streams and their videos.
 
 
No, but judging by the rest of your post, you sure would like it to.
 
 
 
These reaction videos get millions of views usually because they're funny or because the people involved have personalities that people enjoy listening to or watching. It's literally the same thing as morning talk shows. People tune in because the reactions are funny, the conversations are interesting, and the personalities are fun to listen to/watch.
 
This type of entertainment is highly accessible. It doesn't require a lot of time - so there's a low barrier to entry, a low up front cost - and it's usually humorous, entertaining, enlightening, easily understandable, et cetera, so a high amount of value is obtained from it. The fact that you characterize this kind of entertainment as having nothing of interesting and contributing nothing doesn't make it so - it could very well be that you've seen a few videos and simply generalized. 
 
Keep in mind here - if value was not being gained by watching the videos, they would not be getting watched so much. People are mostly rational actors, if simplistic ones. Viewers tend to go for entertainment that has a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. Which explains your next contention:
 
 
Historically, art has a high barrier of entry. It takes a lot of work to get into it. This isn't a new phenomena - it's ages old. Did you ever learn about Shakespeare? One of the reasons we discuss Shakespeare still today is because he wrote plays that were easily accessible to the general public. Low barrier of entry, with a fair amount of very low brow wit - some of it was frankly even slapstick. So, low barrier of entry, high entertainment value. 
 
That is how it has always been. The most complex art historically has been reserved mostly for nobles, the rich, the clergy, and various other people who had the time and money to kill to appreciate it, while lower entertainment was preferred by the masses - because it had a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. 
 
This doesn't mean that one is better than the other, nor does it indicate anything particular about people. The fact is, everyone has their passions and their interests - and outside of their passions and interests, they're not likely to invest a whole lot of time into something. Why would you expect a creative work of art to have millions of views? Of course it wouldn't. Because the ONLY people who gain something from it are people who are passionate about art in the first place - so people who are passionate about, say, plants or math (me!) would spend hours on plant videos, but they wouldn't spend hours on creative, artistic videos - rather, I'd be likely to watch a low brow video that has a high entertainment pay off and a low barrier to entry, or else spend my time on the things I actually care about. 
 
 
 
 
The reason most people don't care is because you're stating the blatantly obvious.
 
What you've said amounts to this:
 
People, in general, won't put in the time and energy to understand and appreciate things that they don't have any previously existing interest in, and would rather enjoy something that doesn't demand so much of them.
 
This is obvious. Why would people - the majority of whom have working lives, passions, interests, and goals which they are already putting a significant amount of time into - spend extra time on something that isn't their interest? Just because you think something artistic on youtube is worthwhile doesn't mean others will. Yeah, a lot of work went into it - and that work pays off to the people who have an existing interest in it. But for everyone else, there's just a high barrier of entry and something that's demanding a lot more time from them than they have to be spending, for a minimal payoff.
 
 
 
Nobody is living off of other people's content. You're creating an issue where none exists. Just because you don't like some content, doesn't mean that the people who made that content are parasites. 
 
 
 
 
 
Beyond ALL of that, consider this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium
https://www.youtube.com/user/AsapSCIENCE
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DIY

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCduKuJToxWPizJ7I2E6n1kA

 
 
This is just a very small sampling of original content on youtube with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views. Your notion that people aren't paying attention to original content is patently wrong - they're just not paying attention to the content you care about. Which makes sense. You pay attention to that content because it's of value to you, so the barrier to entry isn't a big deal. But for people who have no interest in it? The barrier to entry IS a big deal, so they're naturally gonna pay attention to things that either A. are of interest to them or B. have a low barrier to entry (cat videos, reaction videos, et cetera)

All of the quotes below are from the OP, CptnChan
 
 
Consider a couple things here:
 
1. I'm not actually sure that you're correct that these are more prolific than people who create "new" content.
2. Critics, reviewers, and game-streamers are delivering an actual product/service. They are content creators. The fact that you don't like their content doesn't actually mean anything - they are delivering value to someone. 
 
 
 
Except you're wrong here. That streamer is delivering content. People watch his channel, as opposed to other channels, because they enjoy watching him play, they enjoy listening to him talk as he plays, they enjoy the content he has created. What he has created is separate from the game he is playing - and it is content that clearly a lot of people enjoy.
 
Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is not content or that value has not been created.
 
I personally enjoy watching game streams. I've done it a lot lately, in fact, because I don't have time to play a lot of video games, but it's quite fun to watch them being played while I do my work. When I was a kid, I used to watch my friends play games more than I played them myself - that was enjoyable for me. That's how it is for a lot of people. So these game streamers are creating content, both by doing what they're doing, and by adding value in the form of the commentary and such that they add to their streams and their videos.
 
 
No, but judging by the rest of your post, you sure would like it to.
 
 
 
These reaction videos get millions of views usually because they're funny or because the people involved have personalities that people enjoy listening to or watching. It's literally the same thing as morning talk shows. People tune in because the reactions are funny, the conversations are interesting, and the personalities are fun to listen to/watch.
 
This type of entertainment is highly accessible. It doesn't require a lot of time - so there's a low barrier to entry, a low up front cost - and it's usually humorous, entertaining, enlightening, easily understandable, et cetera, so a high amount of value is obtained from it. The fact that you characterize this kind of entertainment as having nothing of interesting and contributing nothing doesn't make it so - it could very well be that you've seen a few videos and simply generalized. 
 
Keep in mind here - if value was not being gained by watching the videos, they would not be getting watched so much. People are mostly rational actors, if simplistic ones. Viewers tend to go for entertainment that has a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. Which explains your next contention:
 
 
Historically, art has a high barrier of entry. It takes a lot of work to get into it. This isn't a new phenomena - it's ages old. Did you ever learn about Shakespeare? One of the reasons we discuss Shakespeare still today is because he wrote plays that were easily accessible to the general public. Low barrier of entry, with a fair amount of very low brow wit - some of it was frankly even slapstick. So, low barrier of entry, high entertainment value. 
 
That is how it has always been. The most complex art historically has been reserved mostly for nobles, the rich, the clergy, and various other people who had the time and money to kill to appreciate it, while lower entertainment was preferred by the masses - because it had a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. 
 
This doesn't mean that one is better than the other, nor does it indicate anything particular about people. The fact is, everyone has their passions and their interests - and outside of their passions and interests, they're not likely to invest a whole lot of time into something. Why would you expect a creative work of art to have millions of views? Of course it wouldn't. Because the ONLY people who gain something from it are people who are passionate about art in the first place - so people who are passionate about, say, plants or math (me!) would spend hours on plant videos, but they wouldn't spend hours on creative, artistic videos - rather, I'd be likely to watch a low brow video that has a high entertainment pay off and a low barrier to entry, or else spend my time on the things I actually care about. 
 
 
 
 
The reason most people don't care is because you're stating the blatantly obvious.
 
What you've said amounts to this:
 
People, in general, won't put in the time and energy to understand and appreciate things that they don't have any previously existing interest in, and would rather enjoy something that doesn't demand so much of them.
 
This is obvious. Why would people - the majority of whom have working lives, passions, interests, and goals which they are already putting a significant amount of time into - spend extra time on something that isn't their interest? Just because you think something artistic on youtube is worthwhile doesn't mean others will. Yeah, a lot of work went into it - and that work pays off to the people who have an existing interest in it. But for everyone else, there's just a high barrier of entry and something that's demanding a lot more time from them than they have to be spending, for a minimal payoff.
 
 
 
Nobody is living off of other people's content. You're creating an issue where none exists. Just because you don't like some content, doesn't mean that the people who made that content are parasites. 
 
 
 
 
 
Beyond ALL of that, consider this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium
https://www.youtube.com/user/AsapSCIENCE
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DIY

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCduKuJToxWPizJ7I2E6n1kA

 
 
This is just a very small sampling of original content on youtube with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views. Your notion that people aren't paying attention to original content is patently wrong - they're just not paying attention to the content you care about. Which makes sense. You pay attention to that content because it's of value to you, so the barrier to entry isn't a big deal. But for people who have no interest in it? The barrier to entry IS a big deal, so they're naturally gonna pay attention to things that either A. are of interest to them or B. have a low barrier to entry (cat videos, reaction videos, et cetera)

If you attend a football game and I asked you to write down what you perceived, your words on the page would be a "causal existent" of your observations - but they would not BE the football game.  Your written words would be an existential, analog recording of the game that could be photocopied, distributed and read by others.
 
Furthermore, your observation of the football game would not be omniscient.  If you attended the game with a friend - who happened to be sitting on the opposite side of the field from you - you would each see the game from a different, but wholly objective, perspective.  If after the game you both tried to explain to me what you saw, each description would be analogs of your observations, but from unique perspectives - but each perspective would be objective and exist.

It sounds a little bit like you may be confusing being motivated by others with having other's as your sole end goal/purpose.
 
It's not bad to be motivated by others, or even to want to impress other people - especially if those people mean something to you. What IS bad and IS unhealthy is for your sole purpose to be about other people. Do you work out because you want to be healthier, feel good about yourself, et cetera, or do you do it because you want other people to see you as healthy and strong? There's a pretty strong distinction there, and THAT'S where it matters. 
 
Humans are social animals. We draw strength and support from our friends and our families, and even from just the people around us. Using that to motivate you, to get you to push harder, is in no way bad. What is bad is when you make other people your end goal or you start seeing other people as a means to an end. 

DonAthos said:
 
 
This. This is what I've been trying to get at, apparently less successfully. Yes, an axiom presupposes all proof - but one's identification of an axiom could be wrong. This is why evidence contradicting an axiom has to be considered: because either the conclusion drawn from the evidence is wrong, the evidence itself is wrong, or your identification of an axiom is wrong. That's three points of failure, each of which are equally valid.
 
I did qualify that if evidence existed to contradict an axiom, the axiom would not be the first place I'd look for a failure. I'd re-examine the evidence and the conclusion endlessly, because presumably if I hold an axiom to be true, I've repeatedly re-affirmed that the axiom is necessary for all other things I encounter.
 
Plasmatic said:
 
 
It seems to me that I've either mis-stated my case or you've misunderstood what I've stated.
 
I agree that any kind of proof presupposses the axioms that I hold to be true. My issue is that the axioms were not handed down to me by divine will - I identified them myself, and I am fallible. If evidence contradicted my identification of the axioms, I'd be very hard pressed to accept the evidence or the conclusion drawn from it... but if the evidence and conclusion proved incontrovertible, I would have to re-examine my identification of the axioms, because I am fallible and I may have mis-identified or misinterpreted the axioms.
 
 
Your disagreement here seems to lie in me misusing terms, I suppose. No, if an axiom is truly an axiom, it cannot be disproved. Axioms are not subject to truth values.
 
I, however, am. I'm entirely capable of mis-identifying an axiom. I'm entirely capable of misinterpreting an axiom. I can make mistakes. So if the evidence of reality truly, incontrovertibly, contradicted something that I believed to be an axiom - well, I'd be forced to consider the possibility that I mis-identified it as an axiom, or I misinterpreted the consequences of that axiom. If such a thing ever happened, it would imply that the axiom is, perhaps, not an axiom at all.
 
However, as I have said previously, it would take a whole hell of a lot of examination, re-examination, and re-re-examination of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it before I would even entertain that possibility. An axiom is considered so because it is necessary for me to believe anything that I have seen up to that point. Something that tells me my belief in an axiom is wrong would have to be convincing enough to also make me think that everything else that I've seen and believed in my life to that point is also wrong - and proving that to me would be one hell of a feat.
 
 
 
My issue was originally with someone criticizing a scientific idea on account of it being "bad philosophy." My contention is simply that that's not an appropriate response to scientific evidence and a scientific conclusion. If there is an absolutely miniscule chance that I mis-identified an axiom, there's still a chance. I'm not saying that I would immediately assume my philosophy to be wrong if science contradicted it - but I would also not use my philosophy as a basis for criticizing the scientific idea. I'd examine the idea, the evidence and the conclusion drawn from the evidence on a scientific basis until I found where the fault is in its conclusion.

I'm curious how many of the people who say that racism is perpetuated primarily among blacks actually have any significant amount of experience in black culture. 
 
 
Lol, what? How does having a black president suddenly make the existence of racism an extraordinary claim?
 
Consider the demographics in the United States. It would be quite easy for a black president to get elected while still having a disproportionately white representation in offices of power, and just as easy for there to be significant institutional racism. Just because a majority vote elected a black president doesn't mean racism doesn't exist or that it's an extraordinary claim to make. Honestly, it speaks to the efficacy of our electoral system that in spite of the existence of racism we still elect a black president. 
 
 
Holy shit. I'm really curious where you get such an ass backwards view of the world from.
 
I've lived around black people all my life - the areas I've lived in and gone to school often times have been predominantly black. I've never heard one "bitch and moan" about "not getting a break" or "getting beat down by the white man." I've seen them work just as hard as many of my white friends though, and end up half as far. I've seen them get arrested and get in trouble for possessing minute amounts of drugs while I've walked scott-free in the same situation. I know that I get pulled over for going 20 over the speed limit, the cop will give me a stern talking to - because that's what's happened before - while some blacks I've known won't pass the speed limit because a fine would be the least of their problems if an officer pulled them over. I've heard white people say the most racist things in the presence of other white people, without any awareness of what they were saying, and have everyone around them agree with them. I've been chastised before for pointing out that someone was making a blatantly racist comment in front of a black person.
 
I'm having a hard time seeing where you're getting your view from here. Even a cursory google search of "racism study" or "racism america study" or even "race in america study" or similar terms brings up nothing but support for the notion that racism and racial inequality are alive and well in America. A broad search of any of the research databases my university has access to brings up similar results: nothing but support for the idea that racism exists and affects minorities significantly. The only way I can conceptualize you having such an ass-backwards view of race is that you've never actually spent more than five minutes talking to a black person, and haven't tried to achieve an understanding of racism on your own.
 
____________________
 
I'd say that racism is a pretty big deal today, in a multitude of ways. Like many issues, it is not a simple black-white issue: it affects everyone in a variety of ways. Human beings generalize - I'm inclined to think that doing so is part of our nature. And unfortunately, we are not very far removed from a time when it was commonplace to assume blacks and non-whites in general to be lesser. My parents grew up fearful of and prejudiced towards black people, and my grandparents were around before the civil rights movement came into swing, and I know a lot of other people with similar families. I think a lot of people today are raised, not with an outright hatred of blacks and minorities, but with broad misconceptions and poor generalizations of who black people are and how they act. I think those misconceptions and generalizations cause many people to act in ways that they may not even be aware are racist - they may prefer the company of white people, they may actively avoid blacks, and, given the appropriate situation, they may assume the guilt of a black person over the guilt of a white person.
 
I'm sure similar misconceptions and generalizations work in the reverse as well: I know that there are quite a few black people who were raised to be fearful or distrusting of white people, and for good reason, given the environment their parents grew up in. That kind of distrust is harmful to both blacks and whites, minorities and non-minorities. I'm also sure that the situation has improved for blacks and minorities significantly. None of that means that racism doesn't exist in America, or that it's confined to black communities, and I don't think that we can rightfully ignore the evidence that continues to crop up suggesting that racism is still a problem in America.
 
Growing up where I have and seeing what I have, as a white person, I'd be downright distrustful of anyone who suggested that racism wasn't an issue in America. Because for me, that person would have to be dangerously ignorant or dangerously dishonest to express such a view.

Cliveandrews seems 100% sure about a lot of things, especially about things that he knows that doctors do not.
 
Cliveandrews, do you perhaps have a medical degree that would make you privy to some knowledge that these foot specialists who you have apparently seen - who have spent many years of their lives studying medicine, the human body, and feet - would, somehow, not have? What makes you think that the knowledge you've obtained through some as yet unknown means is more correct than the knowledge these doctors possess? Are you a medical doctor specializing in feet? 
 
I'm just curious why you're so sure that (apparently) several doctors are wrong about what's wrong with you. Usually one sees a doctor because the doctor knows more than ones' self. If this is not the case here, and you would doubt the doctors' conclusions in the first place... why on earth did you see other doctors?

I'm curious how many of the people who say that racism is perpetuated primarily among blacks actually have any significant amount of experience in black culture. 
 
 
Lol, what? How does having a black president suddenly make the existence of racism an extraordinary claim?
 
Consider the demographics in the United States. It would be quite easy for a black president to get elected while still having a disproportionately white representation in offices of power, and just as easy for there to be significant institutional racism. Just because a majority vote elected a black president doesn't mean racism doesn't exist or that it's an extraordinary claim to make. Honestly, it speaks to the efficacy of our electoral system that in spite of the existence of racism we still elect a black president. 
 
 
Holy shit. I'm really curious where you get such an ass backwards view of the world from.
 
I've lived around black people all my life - the areas I've lived in and gone to school often times have been predominantly black. I've never heard one "bitch and moan" about "not getting a break" or "getting beat down by the white man." I've seen them work just as hard as many of my white friends though, and end up half as far. I've seen them get arrested and get in trouble for possessing minute amounts of drugs while I've walked scott-free in the same situation. I know that I get pulled over for going 20 over the speed limit, the cop will give me a stern talking to - because that's what's happened before - while some blacks I've known won't pass the speed limit because a fine would be the least of their problems if an officer pulled them over. I've heard white people say the most racist things in the presence of other white people, without any awareness of what they were saying, and have everyone around them agree with them. I've been chastised before for pointing out that someone was making a blatantly racist comment in front of a black person.
 
I'm having a hard time seeing where you're getting your view from here. Even a cursory google search of "racism study" or "racism america study" or even "race in america study" or similar terms brings up nothing but support for the notion that racism and racial inequality are alive and well in America. A broad search of any of the research databases my university has access to brings up similar results: nothing but support for the idea that racism exists and affects minorities significantly. The only way I can conceptualize you having such an ass-backwards view of race is that you've never actually spent more than five minutes talking to a black person, and haven't tried to achieve an understanding of racism on your own.
 
____________________
 
I'd say that racism is a pretty big deal today, in a multitude of ways. Like many issues, it is not a simple black-white issue: it affects everyone in a variety of ways. Human beings generalize - I'm inclined to think that doing so is part of our nature. And unfortunately, we are not very far removed from a time when it was commonplace to assume blacks and non-whites in general to be lesser. My parents grew up fearful of and prejudiced towards black people, and my grandparents were around before the civil rights movement came into swing, and I know a lot of other people with similar families. I think a lot of people today are raised, not with an outright hatred of blacks and minorities, but with broad misconceptions and poor generalizations of who black people are and how they act. I think those misconceptions and generalizations cause many people to act in ways that they may not even be aware are racist - they may prefer the company of white people, they may actively avoid blacks, and, given the appropriate situation, they may assume the guilt of a black person over the guilt of a white person.
 
I'm sure similar misconceptions and generalizations work in the reverse as well: I know that there are quite a few black people who were raised to be fearful or distrusting of white people, and for good reason, given the environment their parents grew up in. That kind of distrust is harmful to both blacks and whites, minorities and non-minorities. I'm also sure that the situation has improved for blacks and minorities significantly. None of that means that racism doesn't exist in America, or that it's confined to black communities, and I don't think that we can rightfully ignore the evidence that continues to crop up suggesting that racism is still a problem in America.
 
Growing up where I have and seeing what I have, as a white person, I'd be downright distrustful of anyone who suggested that racism wasn't an issue in America. Because for me, that person would have to be dangerously ignorant or dangerously dishonest to express such a view.

The best, most beneficial, way that I've found to interact with "normal" people, is to first realize that I, and you as well, am also a "normal" person (insofar as "normal" is even a valid concept, which I hesitate to believe).
 
When I first got into Objectivism, also in high school, I had this whole ridiculous phase where I saw everyone around me as a "Keating" and a few, select people as actually rising above the rest. This is a stupid viewpoint. Everyone around you is not a "Keating," you just don't know the people around you, so you assume. Almost everyone I've ever met has personal interests, goals, ambitions, things and people they care about. Yeah, some select few people truly are hopeless losers who will only bring you down. Learning to avoid those people isn't an Objectivist task - it's a people task, because everyone has to avoid that kind of person. But most people aren't that kind of person.
 
But sometimes we get into the habit of tribal thinking. Everyone who isn't an Objectivist, or who doesn't strictly adhere to the tenets of Objectivism, is a lesser person, or at least you're a greater person for doing so. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to religious extremism, and it's the same kind of thinking that causes people looking at some Objectivists to pronounce that they are dogmatists or cultists: that inside-vs-outside sort of attitude, where you're somehow more special than people who don't believe, is the exact kind of thing that causes people to believe Objectivism is a cult. You are no more a "true" individual (as the first responder would have you believe) than anyone else is - this isn't to say that you aren't an individual, but rather that everyone is.
 
If you have trouble conversing with people because of your beliefs... well, than either the problem is your beliefs (which, seeing as there are plenty of Objectivists who are capable of living normal social lives, I hesitate to believe) or the problem is your social skills. Either way, the solution is simple: whatever problems you have with other people based on your beliefs, get past them. Until someone truly slights you, you have no reason to think less of them by default. Try to get to know people, discover their interests and their ambitions instead of simply assuming that they are "Keatings". Be a good person, and discover the good in other people. Share your interests with other people, and discover people who care about what you care about - or discover new things to care about by learning about other people's interests.
 
Ayn Rand's fiction, while brilliant, did not portray a world that reflected the real world. Its limited cast of characters were almost always on one side or another: die-hard Objectivist ideals (with resumes that most of us could only aspire to) or clear cut "moochers" and "looters". There were a few exceptions, but Rand's fiction encouraged - perhaps not intentionally - the view that the majority of people are simply mindless drones. It's an easy belief to fall into when you're a teenager and you haven't developed that sense of perspective that allows you to be aware that, indeed, everyone around you thinks, everyone around you goes through hardships, everyone around you has goals and loves and passions, and everyone around you sometimes, also, feels left out.
 
 
 
As for the problem of not enjoying school itself, take everyone else's advice: find a subject you enjoy, and learn it yourself. I did that in high school, and I've continued doing it in college, even when I didn't need to. 

I sure hope that we don't need an Objectivist definition of "funny." It's starting to seem like someone needs to write a dictionary of common terms that have different meanings in Objectivism. Is there something inherently wrong with the definition of "funny" being "that which makes one laugh"? 

I'm curious what leads you to believe that colleges with government funding provide crap education. I'm all for trying to find free market alternatives to things... but many of the brightest minds in the world attended or currently work at publicly funded universities. Just because someone's philosophy disagrees with yours doesn't mean they have nothing worthwhile to say. A person can be a brilliant physicist and have differing philosophical beliefs from your own.
 
Go to the best place that you can. Learn from the best people that you can. There's nothing immoral about picking the best possible option of schooling. We work to change the culture and the world that we live in - but unfortunately, even when our philosophical beliefs are at odds with the culture and world we live in, we must still live in it, and make the best of it. So make the best of it.

I'm curious what leads you to believe that colleges with government funding provide crap education. I'm all for trying to find free market alternatives to things... but many of the brightest minds in the world attended or currently work at publicly funded universities. Just because someone's philosophy disagrees with yours doesn't mean they have nothing worthwhile to say. A person can be a brilliant physicist and have differing philosophical beliefs from your own.
 
Go to the best place that you can. Learn from the best people that you can. There's nothing immoral about picking the best possible option of schooling. We work to change the culture and the world that we live in - but unfortunately, even when our philosophical beliefs are at odds with the culture and world we live in, we must still live in it, and make the best of it. So make the best of it.

That's actually valid.
 
That isn't.  If I understand correctly, the issue here is one of implicit consent; even though she said 'no' she really seemed to mean 'yes' and you would hold her accountable for that.  I wouldn't.
The thing about implicit consent, or sanctions, is that they aren't always intentional (even when you correctly deduce their existence).
---
 
Suppose, for example, that she did have some sense of that man's intentions and reciprocated them on some level (which seems likely), but not a conscious level.
We all understand what that's like; people make Freudian slips all the time.  And if you accidentally referred to some woman as your "breast" friend then she would likely be correct to infer that you had been thinking about her breasts. . .  But would you consider it fair if she took that as an implicit proposition and decided to break into your house, several nights later, on that basis?
 
The thing about consent is that it must be given deliberately, which also means explicitly.
 
Unless, of course, you find a woman who doesn't force you to play those stupid games. 
 
If the man in your story had simply said much earlier that night "I would like to make sweet love to you" then she may well have taken offense, but what if she didn't?  What if she replied with an explicit reciprocation?
 
And if she was offended by his advances then would she really be worth them, anyway?

The best, most beneficial, way that I've found to interact with "normal" people, is to first realize that I, and you as well, am also a "normal" person (insofar as "normal" is even a valid concept, which I hesitate to believe).
 
When I first got into Objectivism, also in high school, I had this whole ridiculous phase where I saw everyone around me as a "Keating" and a few, select people as actually rising above the rest. This is a stupid viewpoint. Everyone around you is not a "Keating," you just don't know the people around you, so you assume. Almost everyone I've ever met has personal interests, goals, ambitions, things and people they care about. Yeah, some select few people truly are hopeless losers who will only bring you down. Learning to avoid those people isn't an Objectivist task - it's a people task, because everyone has to avoid that kind of person. But most people aren't that kind of person.
 
But sometimes we get into the habit of tribal thinking. Everyone who isn't an Objectivist, or who doesn't strictly adhere to the tenets of Objectivism, is a lesser person, or at least you're a greater person for doing so. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to religious extremism, and it's the same kind of thinking that causes people looking at some Objectivists to pronounce that they are dogmatists or cultists: that inside-vs-outside sort of attitude, where you're somehow more special than people who don't believe, is the exact kind of thing that causes people to believe Objectivism is a cult. You are no more a "true" individual (as the first responder would have you believe) than anyone else is - this isn't to say that you aren't an individual, but rather that everyone is.
 
If you have trouble conversing with people because of your beliefs... well, than either the problem is your beliefs (which, seeing as there are plenty of Objectivists who are capable of living normal social lives, I hesitate to believe) or the problem is your social skills. Either way, the solution is simple: whatever problems you have with other people based on your beliefs, get past them. Until someone truly slights you, you have no reason to think less of them by default. Try to get to know people, discover their interests and their ambitions instead of simply assuming that they are "Keatings". Be a good person, and discover the good in other people. Share your interests with other people, and discover people who care about what you care about - or discover new things to care about by learning about other people's interests.
 
Ayn Rand's fiction, while brilliant, did not portray a world that reflected the real world. Its limited cast of characters were almost always on one side or another: die-hard Objectivist ideals (with resumes that most of us could only aspire to) or clear cut "moochers" and "looters". There were a few exceptions, but Rand's fiction encouraged - perhaps not intentionally - the view that the majority of people are simply mindless drones. It's an easy belief to fall into when you're a teenager and you haven't developed that sense of perspective that allows you to be aware that, indeed, everyone around you thinks, everyone around you goes through hardships, everyone around you has goals and loves and passions, and everyone around you sometimes, also, feels left out.
 
 
 
As for the problem of not enjoying school itself, take everyone else's advice: find a subject you enjoy, and learn it yourself. I did that in high school, and I've continued doing it in college, even when I didn't need to. 

The best, most beneficial, way that I've found to interact with "normal" people, is to first realize that I, and you as well, am also a "normal" person (insofar as "normal" is even a valid concept, which I hesitate to believe).
 
When I first got into Objectivism, also in high school, I had this whole ridiculous phase where I saw everyone around me as a "Keating" and a few, select people as actually rising above the rest. This is a stupid viewpoint. Everyone around you is not a "Keating," you just don't know the people around you, so you assume. Almost everyone I've ever met has personal interests, goals, ambitions, things and people they care about. Yeah, some select few people truly are hopeless losers who will only bring you down. Learning to avoid those people isn't an Objectivist task - it's a people task, because everyone has to avoid that kind of person. But most people aren't that kind of person.
 
But sometimes we get into the habit of tribal thinking. Everyone who isn't an Objectivist, or who doesn't strictly adhere to the tenets of Objectivism, is a lesser person, or at least you're a greater person for doing so. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to religious extremism, and it's the same kind of thinking that causes people looking at some Objectivists to pronounce that they are dogmatists or cultists: that inside-vs-outside sort of attitude, where you're somehow more special than people who don't believe, is the exact kind of thing that causes people to believe Objectivism is a cult. You are no more a "true" individual (as the first responder would have you believe) than anyone else is - this isn't to say that you aren't an individual, but rather that everyone is.
 
If you have trouble conversing with people because of your beliefs... well, than either the problem is your beliefs (which, seeing as there are plenty of Objectivists who are capable of living normal social lives, I hesitate to believe) or the problem is your social skills. Either way, the solution is simple: whatever problems you have with other people based on your beliefs, get past them. Until someone truly slights you, you have no reason to think less of them by default. Try to get to know people, discover their interests and their ambitions instead of simply assuming that they are "Keatings". Be a good person, and discover the good in other people. Share your interests with other people, and discover people who care about what you care about - or discover new things to care about by learning about other people's interests.
 
Ayn Rand's fiction, while brilliant, did not portray a world that reflected the real world. Its limited cast of characters were almost always on one side or another: die-hard Objectivist ideals (with resumes that most of us could only aspire to) or clear cut "moochers" and "looters". There were a few exceptions, but Rand's fiction encouraged - perhaps not intentionally - the view that the majority of people are simply mindless drones. It's an easy belief to fall into when you're a teenager and you haven't developed that sense of perspective that allows you to be aware that, indeed, everyone around you thinks, everyone around you goes through hardships, everyone around you has goals and loves and passions, and everyone around you sometimes, also, feels left out.
 
 
 
As for the problem of not enjoying school itself, take everyone else's advice: find a subject you enjoy, and learn it yourself. I did that in high school, and I've continued doing it in college, even when I didn't need to. 

I'm not really an expert in biology. The focus of my studies, at the college level, are mathematics and biology, however, so I have had introductory courses and I do do a lot of studying on my own. I do feel well qualified enough to give a decent answer to this. 
 
It largely depends on the topic of biology that you're interested in. Like most fields of science, biology is a heavily diversified field - there's a variety of subfields, and a broad knowledge of biology may not guarantee you enough knowledge in any one subfield to give an educated opinion on something in that field. That said, there's a number of broad sections of biology which are good to know about: general taxonomy [e.g. what the high level domains and kingdoms are], general cell structure and microbiology, basic biochemistry, basic ecological principles, general plant and animal systems, basic genetics and evolutionary principles. 
 
For these things, the best introduction you're going to get is going to be from a college level textbook. I've been exposed to several of them, and I would honestly recommend the textbook that I've had the most occasion to use - Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition. You can probably get earlier editions and be just fine, however, remember that even on the most basic levels, our biological knowledge is always evolving: for example, as of right now, the Kingdom Protista is undergoing some pretty major taxonomic changes, and may potentially be split into a number of separate kingdoms. We're still discovering new structures in the cell and new functions of previously known structures in the cell as well. So getting an up to date book may be very beneficial in terms of how current your knowledge is. 
 
For more specific knowledge, there are a number of domain specific books that offer good introductions. Botany for Gardeners, Third Edition, by Brian Capon is the most widely recommended book on botany - it goes pretty in-depth but assumes only a layman's knowledge of science. The college textbook Raven Biology of Plants is also widely recommended. I've always heard The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins recommended as a good read on evolution and natural selection - though, again, there's a solid introduction to that in pretty much any good college level biology textbook.  The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin is, of course, a good read on evolution, and most people who read it are surprised at it's accessibility and depth of coverage, as it was written to be readable by people who aren't biologists. Carl Zimmer has a number of good books on biology, including several on microbiology - A Planet of Viruses has a lot of information about, well, viruses. One book I've heard widely recommended on microorganisms and health is Good Germs, Bad Germs: Health and Survival in a Bacterial World by Jessica Sachs.Just googling a little finds The Naming of Names by Anna Pavord, an apparently well rated book about the origins of taxonomy. Isaac Asimov also wrote a good historical introduction to biology, titled A Short History of Biology, so if you like Asimov, which you should, you may like that. 
 
Again, though, I really think you'd be best off just getting a college level textbook on biology. Most such books are very heavily invested in making sure you can understand the ideas conceptually. Thankfully, a lot of biology at the most basic levels is process based - understanding the basics of biochemistry and microbiology is largely just getting a conceptual understanding of a number of processes, such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration (and their respective subprocesses, such as, for example, the Calvin cycle, the Citric acid cycle, et cetera). Biology is also one field where having access to good illustrations can be incredibly useful in understanding what's going on.
 

I've stated in the chatroom, and I'll state here, that I believe duels should be legal. So long as every last bullet stays on -their- property, I'm perfectly fine with it. The duel does not infringe on anyone's right, so long as both people mutually consent to the duel, and the bullets do not go on the property of someone who did not agree to allow it.

One of the issues in the chatroom for me was that there's no assurance that the bullets will not miss and hit someone else on accident, which is why I added above that it's legal only in the context that even the bullets themselves stay on the property of the people having the duel (or the property of whoever consented to hold the duel.)

In the chatroom, a number of people claimed that humans could not give up their rights like that, or else that by agreeing to hold a duel, you're not agreeing to die, you're agreeing to risk death. I personally do not see the essential difference between the two in the latter contention, and I don't see why someone would be unable to give up their rights in the former contention.

I've been thinking about getting back into writing, particularly with some more space-based stuff. I decided to give an idea I've had for a while a go, and it came out as this short, short story, titled "My Love, For The Stars"


_____________


When we were young, we'd look up at the sky together. Laying upon the grassy hills out back, we never thought about the present or the past. Hands clasped together, fingers entwined, you told me about the stars and the moon and the planets. You told me about gravity and atmospheres and vacuums.

I didn't understand a lot of it, but I loved it because you loved it.

I was eleven and you were twelve. You had a shelf full of leatherbound books and charts and notepads, and you used to take out your notepads and show me elaborate starcharts, criss-crossed with lines and arrows. You told me all about your plans, all about how you'd get to Mars one week, to Venus the next, to Mercury and Saturn and Jupiter. And then you began to tell me about Andromeda and Betelguese, and how you'd conquer the whole galaxy when you grew up. Sleeping out in your tree house with you, I could imagine that we were in a rocket ship, speeding into the night sky, exploring the universe... hand in hand.

I was sixteen, and you were seventeen. We kissed every morning before class, and you told me every day about our future. I read in the news that some company had landed a ship on Mars, and I could see the urgency on your face. You would conquer the galaxy and no one else, and I always thought that I'd be by your side.

I was eighteen, and you were nineteen. I waved goodbye as you boarded your ship. The crew was already there, and they were waiting for you, and I couldn't see you because there were tears in my eyes. I was happy, because I knew that one day I'd marry the first man to explore another solar system. You told me you'd be gone for months, and maybe years. But it was okay, because you'd write me a message every day, and when the circumstances were right and the technology permitted, you'd call me and maybe I could even see your face.

I was twenty, and you were twenty one. You wrote me a message. You told me that we couldn't be together, that there was too much distance, too much time between us. You didn't know when you'd be home, you didn't know if you'd even ever see me again. They were beginning to set up colonies where you were, and soon you'd have to go farther. You had too little time, too much to do, too much to explore.

But that's okay, because it's been a year now. Sometimes I look up at the night sky and I still think of you. I'm not sad, my darling. I always knew who your true lover was, and that your affair was with me, and not the stars.

I've been thinking about getting back into writing, particularly with some more space-based stuff. I decided to give an idea I've had for a while a go, and it came out as this short, short story, titled "My Love, For The Stars"


_____________


When we were young, we'd look up at the sky together. Laying upon the grassy hills out back, we never thought about the present or the past. Hands clasped together, fingers entwined, you told me about the stars and the moon and the planets. You told me about gravity and atmospheres and vacuums.

I didn't understand a lot of it, but I loved it because you loved it.

I was eleven and you were twelve. You had a shelf full of leatherbound books and charts and notepads, and you used to take out your notepads and show me elaborate starcharts, criss-crossed with lines and arrows. You told me all about your plans, all about how you'd get to Mars one week, to Venus the next, to Mercury and Saturn and Jupiter. And then you began to tell me about Andromeda and Betelguese, and how you'd conquer the whole galaxy when you grew up. Sleeping out in your tree house with you, I could imagine that we were in a rocket ship, speeding into the night sky, exploring the universe... hand in hand.

I was sixteen, and you were seventeen. We kissed every morning before class, and you told me every day about our future. I read in the news that some company had landed a ship on Mars, and I could see the urgency on your face. You would conquer the galaxy and no one else, and I always thought that I'd be by your side.

I was eighteen, and you were nineteen. I waved goodbye as you boarded your ship. The crew was already there, and they were waiting for you, and I couldn't see you because there were tears in my eyes. I was happy, because I knew that one day I'd marry the first man to explore another solar system. You told me you'd be gone for months, and maybe years. But it was okay, because you'd write me a message every day, and when the circumstances were right and the technology permitted, you'd call me and maybe I could even see your face.

I was twenty, and you were twenty one. You wrote me a message. You told me that we couldn't be together, that there was too much distance, too much time between us. You didn't know when you'd be home, you didn't know if you'd even ever see me again. They were beginning to set up colonies where you were, and soon you'd have to go farther. You had too little time, too much to do, too much to explore.

But that's okay, because it's been a year now. Sometimes I look up at the night sky and I still think of you. I'm not sad, my darling. I always knew who your true lover was, and that your affair was with me, and not the stars.

To start, I never got that message from Atlas Shrugged.

Could you explain why you're getting that message? If you've read so much of her non-fiction and fiction, and so far you've been nothing but inspired by it, I don't think it's Atlas Shrugged that's giving you that message, because Atlas Shrugged never really expressed anything that Ayn Rand didn't make explicit in her non-fiction.

Further, if you're in any way serious about asking the questions you've asked and getting answers and figuring out why your experience is different from everyone else's, do you think it's too much to ask that you not be so mocking?