Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Krattle

  1. Well, I don't have a puritan view of sex. I think masturbation is fine and normal (depends on why you do it, of course), and I think two consenting people should do whatever they want during sex. But I do have my own preferences that I won't go into because that's too personal. I also don't hate people who watch hard-core pornography, even though I personally never have and never will. I've always been that way. It's also not that I lack confidence with women. I'm quite confident, in fact. Not an a**hole, not cocky, but confident. If I'm attracted to someone, I don't hesitate in showing that at all. I also know exactly what I want in a woman. I've formed a very detailed picture of that in my head over the years. Finally, I'm not uncomfortable with sex. It's a natural development of a relationship and it's one of the greatest forms of pleasure on earth *if* treated right, but I just don't think it should be taken so lightly. Maybe it's just personal, but I attach more significance to sex. If I want to tell someone I'm attracted to them on the first few dates, I'll kiss them, hold hands, something less rash than going straight for the bedroom. Sex is just such a huge commitment, something that I can't commit to after a couple of dates.
  2. ^^That's a novel, and that was done for dramatic effect...I don't disagree with you guys, I just think that not everyone can be ready to have sex after a couple of dates.
  3. Ahhh, I see what you mean now. I don't exactly disagree with you then. I definitely get impressions of people and act on them; I did with my current partner, and it was a really good idea. It was definitely a "wow" person and the more I learn the more I like. So yeah, I don't see your view of sex as wrong, just different from mine. I'm just not comfortable going to sex so quickly. My partner agrees with me on this, and that's what matters. If I were dating someone who wanted sex sooner, I would have to seriously sit down and think about it because I just can't make that kind of commitment unless I really expect something more to come of the relationship. In short, I'm just not the type of person who can live with a series of relationships, even if they are each fulfilling to some extent. I thrive on very long-term relationships.
  4. To JMeganSnow: I didn't assume that. In fact, I think I made it pretty clear that asking about how many partners someone has had doesn't really answer anything. To Alfa: Really? You know after a couple of dates whether you want to have sex with someone? Holy ****. Please explain how your judgment of another person's character is so complete and accurate after just two dates that you know you want to have sex with them. That just strikes me as a very, very rare occurrence. I definitely feel that way now with my partner after more than three months of dating, but I just can't do that with anyone after just two dates.
  5. Yep, face it. We who understand exactly why socialized health care is evil are the extreme minority in the world. Most people are communist, almost always implicitly, and would much rather take *your* wallet than make their own money. I blame it on our government education that teaches how communism was noble in theory but didn't work in practice. Most people go through their lives never questioning that premise, and those people can easily be turned to the "dark side" because they already accept communism "in theory." That's why I don't bother reading user comments on news websites anymore. Ninety-nine percent of the time they're just plain retarded. What's even sadder is that most of these people are *not* just inexperienced college students who don't have health insurance, don't go to a doctor, and have never even had a job. Nope, most of them are adults with lives, families, jobs, *and* health insurance. It's just that most people aren't willing to look past the first layer of facts to the important issue: why is that the case? People just assume health insurance is expensive because ins. companies are "evil." They don't care to do a little research and find out: oh wait, that's right, private health insurance is taxed but employer-paid health insurance isn't. No wonder it's more expensive for me. They also don't realize these facts: EMTALA, HIPAA, the more than 1500 health insurance mandates across the country that make health insurance unaffordable for many, the fact that you can't buy insurance across state lines or carry your existing plan across state lines...need I go on? EDIT: This is why it just tears me up inside when I see Objectivists and libertarians who aren't supporting each other right now. It's not a compromise to live with Glenn Beck's religious views because right now it's more important that we have an economic and political voice. Religion is a pretty minor issue, frankly. Besides, Glenn Beck didn't incite the Tea Parties. Rick Santelli did. He's an explicit Objectivist. Even Yaron Brook was at the Tea Party in Washington, people. We need all the voices out there we can get: Glenn Beck, Rick Santelli, Rush Limbaugh, and the Tea Parties. It's not a compromise to side with these people. It's to our advantage. Issues like religious views can be dealt with later. Much later. The crisis we face now is one of communism, not Christianity. We aren't entering a dark age of religious zealotry. We're entering a dark age of communism; so we need to fight *that*.
  6. Jeez, I've never even had to worry about that question...even if you're 30, just how many times could you have had sex? But seriously, I've only had two long-term relationships in my life. Now, I don't know about everyone else on this forum, but I'm extremely, extremely picky about my partner. Frankly, I'm really lucky to have had two relationships. So just how many long-term relationships have you guys had? Sexually active relationships? I realize most people don't treat sex with so much care and they just go for it after a couple of dates, so perhaps for "normal" people it's quite possible to have had sex dozens of times by the time they're 30, or even my age. Anyway...if I even had to worry about that question, then I'd definitely want to know...with qualifications. Just knowing how many sexual partners someone has had tells you nothing. They could be promiscuous or they may have just been really lucky and found several really compatible mates in the past. If they've never had any, that doesn't necessarily mean they're frigid. They may just not treat sex as lightly as most people (in which case they probably masturbate). What matters is why they had sex. Were they just desperate, do they treat sex as nothing more than an animalistic physical action? Or do they really care about sex and have just been lucky enough to have a lot of partners. If so then why did those relationships end even though they reached the level of sexual intimacy? ...You need to ask more than just "how many partners have you had." Alfa is right about self-avowed promiscuous people lying. Most college students lie about how often they have sex. Statistical studies show that most college students have *actually* had only 1 or no sexual partners. So all that macho boasting is just a front put up to impress other guys, and possibly even impress women with their "experience." Women may do the same to impress guys with their "experience." I don't really know for sure because I'm very far removed from the college dating scene, which is how I like it.
  7. If I may inject some *SANITY* into this debate.... Even Japanese politicians don't bow to the emperor of Japan. They look him straight in the eye. He's not a god, and there are even many old people who don't see him as god. Obama is a moron who knows nothing about contemporary Japanese politics and he's just an apologist for supposed American stupidity. I mean, do you even know how stupid people are in other countries? (Just as stupid as they are here). I have friends in France who honestly think that George Bush was our king and that he ruled the media with an iron fist. I couldn't convince them they were completely mistaken. Yes we have a bad image overseas, but have you ever considered the premises those people hold? They think America is bad because of some distorted nonsense they heard on their own stupid news channel and they don't consider the facts. Obama just hates what America stands for and he uses every single excuse he can get to "apologize" for us. Oh, and for proof to back up my claims: I've studied Japanese history, culture, and language for 8 years, have lived in Japan, and keep abreast of Japanese politics. Obama is a total f*cking idiot, plain and simple, and he has no idea how big a mistake he made by bowing to the Japanese emperor.
  8. I also thought that the chances of meeting someone who was perfect for me more than once were extremely low if not nonexistent. But I've met two women in 6 years who met if not exceeded my standards. So don't be so glum about that! If you want to stay with this man, then I think the best thing you can do is to debate him. Just sit down and present your arguments for these issues logically. Don't give him a chance to talk or interrupt; he needs to listen to your arguments in full. You may get through to him if you just present yourself as logically as possible. You may want to include personal anecdotes and examples to back up your argument. If you use yourself as an example, it will really put him on the spot and you will probably get more genuine answers/rebuttals than if you just spoke in the abstract. For instance, you've said he *has* told you exactly why he likes you. Well, ask him point blank, "if you know why you like me and you can put it into words, how come you can't understand that that is conditional love?" Just a thought. I suppose the main problem is, do you think there is enough you like about this guy to put the effort convincing him of these issues?
  9. As for stuff like common interests - the same music, the same books. I won't say that's unnecessary. It's minor compared to philosophical views, but it's still important. And if he doesn't see eye-to-eye with you on *why* you like what you do, that's an even bigger issue. It's one thing to say, "Well, you like rock music, but I don't. I don't hate it, but I prefer such-and-such, and I won't mock your tastes because I see nothing wrong with them." But it's a totally different thing to say, "Your favorite book sucks and I think it's evil and should be purged from existence. Here, read my favorite book." I don't want to suggest anything too...bold, but maybe you should do the same with one of his favorite books. Give him a taste of his own medicine and see how he likes it. He could have just been an inconsiderate jerk that one time, so you need to find out if he has a conscience or not. But uh, don't do anything you don't think is right.
  10. Ah, I gotcha. Yes, his views on emotions and in particular romantic love, sex, and relationships are *very* important. It's hard these days to find someone who sees sex as emotional, intellectual, and physical. And who sees love as something selfish, not some selfless "you must love your family because they're your family." If you can't tell your mate exactly why you like them, i.e. "I like you because you respect logic over emotions, you actually think about things, you're emotionally mature, you're motivated, etc. etc." then something's not right. If he isn't willing to hear why you love him and he thinks you should love him unconditionally, then I just can't see compatibility there. You should always be willing to look past certain flaws or failings in your mate's personality because all of us have some kind of issue in our lives. Even Ayn Rand made some serious mistakes in her life. But since ideas are obviously important to you (as they are to me), then your boyfriends contrary ways of thinking are a big problem and you seriously need to consider whether its worth the time to convince him of the right ideas or whether you should just move on. It sounds harsh, but if ideas are important to you on an intellectual and emotional level, it's a major issue.
  11. I'm not going to bother reading through all your posts, sorry, I just don't have the time. But I'll pose you one simple question: what does it matter if your mate doesn't explicitly call himself an Objectivist if the way he thinks is in line with Objectivist thought? Or, to state the question without using the word Objectivist: what does it matter if your mate doesn't want to label himself as part of a group if he already thinks like that group anyway? And one follow up question: do you care about being a member of a group or do you care about thinking rationally? Even Ayn Rand didn't like applying names to her philosophy. I posted my own relationship thread a few months ago about "introducing objectivism into a relationship." Our relationship has been going quite strong for nearly 4 months now and we're both quite smitten with each other. I suggested she read The Fountainhead. She picked it up quite readily and is reading and loving it. I've never called myself an "Objectivist," but we have talked often about various issues: metaphysics, morality, politics, science, education, art, and even romance, dating, and sex. And we agree almost to the very word on all of those issues. I don't care at all that she doesn't label herself an Objectivist because I don't even label myself one. I've read just about everything Rand wrote and I agree with it all, so am I any less of an Objectivist for not caring about whether I call myself one? Just ask yourself: are you going to throw away a potential relationship with someone who thinks rationally and is intelligent, just because he doesn't label himself an Objectivist? Which matters most to you? I think this is an issue with *you* that you need to resolve first. I see nothing wrong with your mate. If I were a woman, I'd date him. Frankly I'm just as picky as you. I have very strict standards for romantic relationships. I mean very, very strict. That's why my current significant other is only my second. My first relationship was great, but she wasn't ready to go further (not my problem), so I had to let it go. This time around I actually have even more emotional intimacy than I did before. What I'm saying is: I think you should listen to me because, based on what I *have* read of your posts, I'm just as picky as you if not more so. But I don't think it's necessary that my partner has read every single book by Ayn Rand ever. All I care about is: how do they think, how do they feel, what do they want out of life. If their thoughts are rational, logical, and they are emotionally mature, and they have a passion in life, then I'm set. Frankly, I wouldn't care if my mate only read a couple of Rand books in her entire life. It's how he/she thinks that matters! You should give this guy time to read Rand at his leisure. Just suggest: "hey, I think you'd like The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/etc., I think you'd be surprised how similarly you think, and on top of that they're really well written." Leave it at that. Maybe he doesn't have time right now to read a 700/1000+ page book. That's a lot to expect of a busy person. Anyway, that's all I have to say. I hope I have been of some help, if not sorry for wasting your time.
  12. I'll think about Ominous Parallels because, even though it's quite topical right now, we've talked a lot about "universal health care" and she already agreed that it's wrong because it violates the rights of doctors and consumers. She also hates what's happening to America right now and is always saying how the only right we have is to pursue our own happiness but never to make someone else do it for us. Frankly, I'm amazed she hasn't already read Rand. It wouldn't be a good idea now because we're both very busy and she's already reading The Fountainhead, but perhaps in December...
  13. She's definitely intellectually curious. It's hard to gauge just how much so, but so far no matter how complicated or detailed or abstract we've gotten in our discussions of ideas she always understands and follows right along in the discussion. She's also quite the bookworm!
  14. Yes, I've told her that Rand was a philosopher. I haven't dumbed-down anything. I should just be more careful how I phrase these things on the forum... All her views on politics and philosophy I've heard so far have all been very much Objectivist and, much like you, what I've told her of the philosophy so far has also sounded common-sense to her and so I definitely want to give her that base to her ideas. Haha, no, I definitely don't feel any guilt about introducing her to Objectivist ideas. It's just hesitation that she might not like it at all or something; I love our relationship and just don't want to lose it. In fact, I just learned today that she's already gone out and picked up "The Fountainhead" on her own. So, problem solved!
  15. Thank you for the comments! It's awesome for me because most women I know are overly concerned with appearance and the latest fashions. I'm not saying she doesn't care about her appearance and hygiene (she does), but she just doesn't enjoy the typical "girl" things like talking for hours about the latest sunglasses, purses, dresses, lipstick, hairsprays, and hair styles. You get my drift? A girl who talks incessantly about that sort of thing turns me off immediately, unless they have some sort of redeeming feature.
  16. I recently met a wonderful girl: she's very intelligent, one of the most motivated people I've ever met, and unlike most women I've known, shows a great deal of interest in subjects beyond her immediate surroundings, like art, music, politics, economics, etc. And she despises concerns like make-up and fashion; she calls them a waste of time (awesome!) We often go on for hours talking about our political views or our favorite classical pieces. She's heard of Ayn Rand on the news a lot (she's not explicitly Objectivist), and knows something about her books. All I've told her so far is how I think Rand's books are great reads and how she'd appreciate them, and that's about all I think I need to do. She's already got a great outlook on her own life, and that's why I was attracted to her. I've pretty much made my decision, which is that I don't think any pushing is necessary at all. I don't think explicit, detailed knowledge of Objectivism is necessary for a person to lead a rational and above all happy life, and that's what she's doing already. My question is: what kind of views do the Objectivists on this forum hold on the issue? Do you think it's OK to suggest readings like that in a relationship? (I've already shown her some of the Rand TV interviews and she was genuinely impressed, saying that Ayn Rand was brilliant and how she'd have loved to sit down to lunch with her).
  17. OK, but you didn't understand what I said. Re-read my post more carefully. Also, even if physiognomy per-se isn't racist, it was used as a tool by racists to discriminate against black people and anyone else they deemed inferior because of the shape of their skulls, etc.
  18. Ultimately, you can't "win" a debate against a person who has never put a second of rational thought into their own beliefs. I put win in quotes because winning does not necessarily mean having the other party know he/she has lost. Like I said, they'll never give up because they have nothing to give up. They have no firm ground to their argument to lose. They'll just keep arguing endlessly with their emotions and whatever cliches they've heard on the news and what public school taught them. I can't remember who said it, but someone once said that you can't reason a man out of an idea he never reasoned himself into. I applaud you on your game of attrition, however. Who knows, you may be able to pound even a minuscule thought into this person's head.
  19. Dude, Myself, what you're talking about has nothing to do with physiognomy. Presenting heroes and heroines as physically attractive is part of the literary process. You make a person's appearance fit his personality - that's how you write fiction!!!! It makes perfect sense for Peter Keating to be the pretty boy because that fits his personality. That doesn't mean Rand believed your physical appearance was determined by your philosophy, because that would logically require that you have a philosophy as an embryo. BECAUSE YOUR APPEARANCE IS DETERMINED BY GENES. Now, what Rand was talking about was that someone with self-esteem naturally wants to keep their body clean and keep good hygiene. They would also tend to dress in a manner that expresses their sense of self-worth. Galt having striking facial features has nothing to do with that and everything to do with writing good fiction. Don't try to bring the racist physiognomy BS into Objectivism, because it has no place.
  20. Krattle

    Classical music

    ^^True, my only intention was for my suggestions to just be taken as suggestions, not commands. Yeah, if only we had those kinds of composers nowadays! Instead of the current pop music and rap, we'd have people raving about the latest so-and-so's Symphony. Oh well... Blame bad philosophy and its effort to supplant tonality with atonality. John Cage is (was?) a living reductio ad absurdum of that philosophy.
  21. I'm serious here, I think you should read this webpage about the performance of gold and what it's indicating now. I found the article very enlightening. It's called "Gold is Speaking." Here is a brief excerpt: In the current global manic rush by central banks to inflate and by governments to spend that paper, there are a few observers who have expressed concern that at some future date this wholesale, last ditch Keynesian and Statist approach just might actually produce "inflation." ... So, with that as a backdrop, what has been going on with the various "asset classes" in recent years? And especially, what if anything does gold tell us about the risk of inflation? Is it really the quiet unconcerned metal that these State apologist economists claim? Historically gold is a wise metal that often anticipates inflationary and deflationary trends; defining inflation in the Austrian School manner – as growth in the money supply (s), which we now must think of globally, not merely as a U.S. monetary and fiscal event.
  22. Krattle

    Classical music

    Frankly, I don't think anyone should be giving suggestions for classical music. Naming a few composers is fine, but you should just listen to stuff and judge for yourself. You can't force yourself to appreciate art. If you don't like it after listening to it say, twice, then forget it. You just don't like it and you may never like it. Maybe you can come back to it in 10 years and find that you like it then. Also, forget what Ayn Rand said about her particular tastes. Music is not "do or die" unless it is explicitly malevolent, like rap "music." Don't hesitate to feel emotions other than happiness, too! That's the whole point of art: to experience emotions that mean something to you, and you need to feel everything. Sadness, longing, rage, triumph, etc. They're all important and have meaning. So, to name some composers who have never failed me: Rachmaninoff, Beethoven, Chopin, Dvorak, Shostakovich, sometimes Bach, sometimes Mozart, Liszt. Sometimes Vivaldi, too. I would suggest them all; anything they composed, seriously. Just try all their pieces and find what you like, and reject what you don't. You don't have to like a piece just because thousands of others do. Numbers is not an argument. Go find other composers, too. There are tons of Romantic, Classical, and Baroque composers worth listening to, even if only a handful of their pieces are good.
  23. If you're thinking about investing in gold, I'd suggest checking out this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/oliver1.1.1.html
  24. I've had a lot of discussions about who I consider beautiful ... This is really a hard one, but I think I could venture a few guesses: Ito Misaki, a Japanese actress: http://www.flickr.com/photos/honan4108/375030653/sizes/o/ Vicki Zhao Wei, a Chinese actress: http://img.article.pchome.net/game/00/10/4...o001%5B1%5D.jpg
  25. In case you didn't realize, my post was hyperbole. I don't actually wish death upon billions. I'm just trying to point out how the hundred million Communism has already killed has not stirred enough people. So many people still believe Communism was a great idea. I'm not a sociopath and I don't have an "anti-life" view of the world. My point is that it seems to take dramatic events to stir the ignorant to attention. I wish there were a better way, but one can't spend one's life educating those ignorant of philosophy.
  • Create New...