jfortun

When Manjari said this: I presumed that, as a woman, she was speaking from personal experience and that she disagreed with your position. So when you responded with: The implication is that Manjari is not a rational woman.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "masculine" and "feminine" are without meaning. I would say that such concepts are actually bound by physical traits and not by psychological ones. I am a bit disturbed by the fact that those of us who do not see a black-and-white distinction between the male and female mind are dismissed as being corrupted by feminism and that when a woman makes a point about romantic love another poster suggests she is not rational. These ad hominem attacks do not add to the argument or prove a relevant point. My position on romantic love and on the nature of men and women is based on observation of real men and real women. There is no denying that, for example, men tend to be more competitive and less prone to emotional outbursts while women tend to be more nurturing and more in tune with their emotions; but these tendencies are not universal and can vary from one individual to another. These observations have led me to believe that the differences, while influenced by physiology are more influenced by culture and upbringing. Given the above, defining masculinity, femininity and proper romantic love, becomes a much more complicated issue and not as simplistic as “producer”, “beautiful, soft and demure” and "hero-worship". These observations seem so obvious to me that it is difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that those who believe the psyches of men and women are so easily pigeon-holed are not seeking the truth, but seeking to rationalize their chauvinism and their belief in an incomplete view proffered by Ms. Rand. I do believe this issue is important in the discussion of homosexuality. Given my above position I do not see how a relationship based on the proper values between 2 men or 2 women could be dismissed as romantically improper.

Any thoughts on Terry Gilliam as a director? His movies definately contain a number of conflicting premises but I am drawn to his vision and style. For those not sure of which films Gilliam has directed, here is the list: Time Bandits Brazil The Adventures of Baron Munchausen The Fisher King 12 Monkeys Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas In particular I have always been drawn to Brazil.

If you haven't seen Kurosawa's High and Low be sure to seek it out. About Hero: I just came from the theatre and have to say I really enjoyed the film. The Rashamon approach to tell what is really a simple story was highly effective. As for the themes within the film, I am on the fence.

Sure! I'd be glad if Alton Brown got some more exposure.

Which kind of brings up the point that we should not pretend environmental law exists to protect humans- that is certainly not the motivation driving most supporters of such laws.

The assertion was : Well most of the women I know (not my wife thankfully) are far more emotional then men tend to be. Do I take this into account when forming the image of the ideal woman? Or do I blank out the typically feminine traits that I don't happen to like? Dagny certainly was not typical in this sense. She was much more masculine in her business dealings and her competetive nature. I will concede that generally speaking, a woman will seek a physically strong partner- but how important is that really in terms of a long-term multidecade relationship? Intellect, rationality, wit, sense of life- these are traits worth seeking out for a successful life-long commitment and yet these are traits that one could hardly classify as particularly masculine or feminine. I think judging the propriety of a romantic relationship based on how well it fits into the hero-worship model is too simplistic, plus it doesn't say much about the male side of romantic love.

If the dumping was performed by a business then yes, you would have recourse against the business (assuming it still was one). If the dumping was done by an individual and that person was dead, you could not of course hold the decendants of that person accountable for his actions. If the chemical is known to turn into a terrible poison wouldn't it already be illegal to just dump it anywhere?

This is getting absurd. If I took all of the traits one traditionally thinks of as feminine and crammed them in to a single woman I would have to kill that woman because she would be unbearable. Your point begs the question if ideal (according to whom?), and feminine (just the "good" ones? how is this definition not influenced by culture? please define). If we take Dagny Taggart as the the archetype of womanhood, her traits hardly come from the pool of typical feminine traits we see in the women around us. She had a good deal of testosterone flowing through her veins.

Yes, if the chemical is known to degenerate into a poison then I can imagine some sort of law or civil case being legitimate.

I have been a fan of the FoodTV show Good Eats ever since it first popped up on there air. I have always enjoyed Alton Brown's no-nonsense scientific approach to food, and he seems like a rational fun guy. Ignoring my usual policy of not learning too much about an artist/celebrity who's work I enjoy, I wandered to his website and found that AB had made the following post: very refreshing.

Drinking alchohol has very well know effects. Driving under the influence of alchohol removes the ability of the driver to react quickly enough to operate a car safely. Drinking and driving does not guarantee an accident but it increases the probablity of an accident. You're comparing the above with the as yet completely unknown 100 year-old effects of dumping a hitherto known-as-safe chemical? Putting aside the argument of whether the law should properly govern future scenerios- the real crime here is in suggesting that the unknown has equal epistemilogical status as the known.

In all such cases the laws are there to prevent something known to be harmful. That cannot be said of the scenerios you speak of.

In your example the possible near term effect of drunk driving is well known. There is no speculation on the effects driving drunk or about what happens when you hit someone because of it. This is hardly the same scenerio as abolishing chemical X or manufacturing process Y because of speculation about their possible effects 100 or 1000 years down the line.

Can the law really require such omniscience? If dumping the substance was not illegal at the time I don't see how the original dumper (or his estate) could be held liable.

These differences between men and women you sense differ very wildly across generations, cultures and sub-cultures. It is not feminisim that teaches this, it is what is easily observable in reality. There are some common traits within each sex but I fail to see how those traits make it possible for anybody to deduce any given relationship's propriety beyond that it be based on mutual sharing of rational values.

How do do these differences justify the following statement: The ability to earn money does say some good things about the character about a man, but it does not paint a complete picture of that man. For example, Michael Moore earns a very good living, but that sole fact does not make him heroic and worthy of female devotion.

As an aside, is it your position that psychological differences have their root in genetics and/or physical structure rather than culture? I've always thought that Rand's view of femininity and masculinity were somewhat of an era rather then fully describing the permanent characteristics of man and woman-kind.

As the setup of the question already states that no one is present to perceive the sound I interpret the question: to mean, does the falling tree produce sound waves. If the question was "is there a sound" the answer would be no. As stated I think the answer is yes, the falling tree does make the elements required for a sound.

I thought it was a very interesting twist on the superhero motif. I probably should be embarassed to admit it but I actually shed tears in the scene on the train where the people were show appreciation for what Spidey had done for them. It is too bad that the solution to this was "get over it" and sacrifice yourself (although he does get the girl).

I enjoyed the technical wizardry of the Matrix but it left a very very bad philosophical taste in my mouth. Have to say I am a big fan of Monk though.

2 Questions: 1) What specifically in the 15-20 minutes (I am assuming you also stopped watching Dusk Till Dawn) you have watched Taratino as led you to suggest that any of his work has zero rational validity? 2) Can you give some examples of recent movies/television/etc. that, in your eyes do have rational validity? (and as a point of fact, From Dusk Till Dawn was co-written by Tarantino. It was directed by Robert Rodriguez.)

This has always struck me too. It is why I am most active on the aesthetics forums; they tend to be the places where such extreme opposites pop up and I find it fascinating. Art invokes an emotional response so it may be more difficult to pinpoint why one has reacted to a film in one way or another. To take Tarantino as an example- even if we all agreed that he is indeed a technical master- some may just not be able to see violence in any context as lyrical or funny. The content of his films may disgust one and exhilarate another even though both of viewers are likely sickened by violence on news. Is this because one holds radically different premises than the other? I don't think so. Something else is at work though I have not yet be able to describe it.

It's very very rare and those in the know differ as to why it happens (most commonly it is thought to be the fault of tornados or waterspouts) but it does happen. And not just with frogs- fish too. # In 1873, Scientific American reported that Kansas City, Missouri was blanketed with frogs that dropped from the sky during a storm. # Minneapolis, Minnesota was pelted with frogs and toads in July, 1901. A news item stated: "When the storm was at its highest... there appeared as if descending directly from the sky a huge green mass. Then followed a peculiar patter, unlike that of rain or hail. When the storm abated the people found, three inches deep and covering an area of more than four blocks, a collection of a most striking variety of frogs... so thick in some places [that] travel was impossible." # The citizens of Naphlion, a city in southern Greece, were surprised one morning in May, 1981, when they awoke to find small green frogs falling from the sky. Weighing just a few ounces each, the frogs landed in trees and plopped into the streets. The Greek Meteorological Institute surmised they were picked up by a strong wind. It must have been a very strong wind. The species of frog was native to North Africa! #August 3, 1883 edition of the Decatur Daily Republican. "Cairo, Illinois, August 3 - Early yesterday morning the decks of the steamers Success and Elliot, moored at the Mississippi levee, were observed to be literally covered with small green frogs about an inch in length, which came down with a drenching rain which prevailed during the night. Spars, lines, trees and fences were literally alive with the slimy things, while the lights from the watchmen's lanterns were obscured by the singular visitation. The phenomenon, while not entirely unknown, has never been explained, and is causing considerable comment.

Actually, I think that it is the exact opposite and that the message is "This is what real life is like for those who are essentially depraved." Every depraved action in this movie has a serious consequence- everyone get's their comuppance (and then some). I didn't find it too difficult to integrate this movie. Telling the story out of order makes for more dramatic tension and gives us the opportunity to approach the stories like an interlocking puzzle. I find this particular aspect of Pulp Fiction quite enjoyable.