Inspector

This is the primary cause, in my observation, of individuals who view the car as an appliance and who want to remove themselves as far as possible from the experience of driving. It is, in my opinion, a tragedy. The traffic conditions of today are NOT a necessary or ideal part of modern life: to adapt yourself to them is, however momentarily necessary, something that should not be internalized into one's sense of the world. It may be necessary, in these times, when entering a bad or violent neighborhood, to dress and act in a nonassuming way; to keep one's head down and watch for danger. But this should never become a person's total worldview: they should always refuse to accept this state of affairs as the given, the norm, and the "way things are." It is for the very same reason that people should never accept traffic jams as "the given" and to never form their ideal in transportation as being a disgusting and frustrating venture which should be automated and isolated as much as possible. I can accept a person saying, "the roads are clogged, so I must sadly buy a Toyota Camry and try to remove myself as far as I can from the act of driving." I will never accept a person saying, "Driving isn't good; the ideal vehicle would isolate the driver from the experience, or even better it would drive itself." Do not surrender to the bureaucracy that has made the roads into a clogged mass. Do not let them win. Do not let them rob you of the joy of driving. Everyone who has a bland appliance to drive to work should have a roadster in the garage for the weekends, or should aspire to one at least.

That's very good. May I use it?

As an interesting addition, I would say that a key feature of a system that institutionalizes the initiation of force is that it makes it nearly impossible for the individual to distinguish exactly who has initiated force against him. This is a very insideous feature which often disarms the morally unsure.

Another interesting question: between pacifistic Christianity and warlike Christianity, which is the more consistant interpretation/application? If you know the mechanics of compromise, you know where I'm going with this...

Would you say that they have a ranked priority in your opinion (i.e. urgency, overall danger), or are they completely incommensurable?

As would I! I see you're a man after my own heart, at least in automotive terms.

He had it shipped and he paid for the insurance? It sounds like UPS is liable to him, not to you, and that HE is in turn liable to YOU. If your contract with the seller had terms making the property yours before it shipped, then it would have been more proper for you to arrange a pickup rather than him paying for the shipment. If your contract specified that the transfer of ownership happened when you recieved the goods, then the seller should refund your money. That's my completely unprofessional opinion. Any lawyer can feel free to come blast it apart.

A very good point. Perhaps I need to re-think my application of DIM. Can it be applied to movements, or just to people? I am now starting to think that it is valid only as an individual psycho-epistemological classification. (in which case, conservatism would subsume a large number or D1's, M1's, and M2's)

I know this is satire, but is it your position that Islam is a major threat to this country: specifically, a greater threat than destruction from within by Socialism? Don't read too far into that; I'm just making sure where everyone stands.

Could you explain your reasoning for classifying Conservatism as a D1 and not an M1? Also, can anyone comment on Peikoff's assertion that "Not even Hillary Clinton [would be as big a threat as Bush]?" I think that someone like Kerry or Bill Clinton (who are certainly "1's" of some sort), is non-threatening (comparatively), but it would be a mistake to put Hillary in this category, as she is clearly a "2." (And, of course, whatever Kerry's personal number, his strings are being pulled by the "2's" like Hillary, so I'm not so sure we can count him out as harmless just yet. The problem with that man is that when I look at him, I see a vaccuum, which any dark force could fill. The terms "meat puppet" and "hollow man" come to mind)

Swig, that's a good summary of Peikoff's position as near as I can understand it. The counter-argument given here seems to go along the lines of: The Democrats, being representatives of "D," will deliver us quickly into the state of the Weimar Republic, where economic disintegration will lead to a counter-movement that is practically ideal for any "M2" to come in as a demagogue and take power. Literally, we have to survive long enough for Objectivism to offer an "I" alternative for the Republican "M." Bush is in fact an "M1" and Kerry, though himself a "D1," will easily be pulled into the actions of a "D2." Society will then collapse too quickly and the next great philosophical contender will be the largest: in this case, the M of Conservatism. How would you respond to this assessment?

Or, in Latin, TyrannoDaily Rex.

That's what makes it so sad.

I go on Saturday, then four days later on Wednesday. Then I go on the Sunday after that, and then on the following Saturday, and repeat from there. It's 1.5 times a week, and I do it to shift most of my lifts to the weekends. Also, I'm kind of hedging my bets against overtraining by putting in the 6 day rest every other week. It's great fun!

How true. And every day billions of people accept and practice moralities and politics that are bent and determined to make sure that we will never reach such a level of prosperity. To think of the countless pains and frustrations in life that simply would not exist in a free and Capitalistic society of Objectivists... I'm sorry, but that just makes me very angry. To think of what could and should be and to contrast it with the enormity of the smallness of its enemies. But it is a righteous anger; one that gives me the resolve to keep working for that future.

Well, two things: 1) I don't think that those "common people" who were beating up altruists are meant to be the heroes of the story. They were just regular people who were dealing with the problem on the level that they could understand. Their actions were not meant to be followed, in other words. 2) As this was at the point in the story where everyone had already been stripped of their rights by government decree, I believe Rand would view their actions as "neutral." She has an interesting description of the moral status of the actions of those who live under a dictatorship. I belive it is on one of the FAQ's on the ARI. Maybe someone here can get you a link...

I can agree with that. I'm not about to turn to them for intellectual advice!

I work in a call center as customer service and basic tech support. It's through a temping agency, so I'm underpaid and have no job security Apparantly, a Bachelor's in Telecommunications is useless! I'm currently studying for the LSAT, as I want a career where I can use my intellectual skills for a living, and possibly make a differance in this mixed-economy country.

And I've told you: I am not interested in debating the subject with non-objectivists. I've seen how people use technical jargon as a cudgel to intimidate and attack, and not as a tool to seek the truth. If you aren't an expert on HST, then I will just have to wait for one to come here. I'm sorry if my questions frustrated you, but I honestly think that your experiance could just as easily be explained by my theory and that HST is not in fact helping you. It looks like we won't really be able to find it out by ourselves. For now, we will go our separate ways and use our preferred methods. So do I! That's precisely why I am wary of HST. I hope someone will be able to clear this up for us. Until then... *shrug* As an aside, I frankly don't care how hard I have to lift in the gym, or how sore I get afterwards. If it works, I'm going to do it. And I don't want to have to go to the gym three more times a week just to avoid soreness. If it turns out that HST is in fact more productive, then I will switch to that, too. Until then, good lifting!

Sounds like you're in no danger of going the other way, after all. No need to get mad; it was a friendly reminder not to "go too far." Nothing more.

So it's entirely possible that you were simply mis-applying HIT and that your current growth may or may not have anything to do with the pre-loading. The pre-loading my be entirely for your psychological benefit. Correct me if I misunderstand, here. One thing is that I have NEVER failed to be motivated so I am not interested in a system that uses such "crutches" and wastes my time. Also, I don't understand your comment that "your muscles will be traumatized by the lighter weight" after deconditioning. You earlier said that 4 days was way too long to wait and that recovery was finished in 48 hours. Now you are saying that after 2 weeks of inactivity, a light weight is somehow still capable of "traumatizing" your muscles?

From your description, allow me to put forth a theory: The "light" cycles are in fact non-productive for you. They are doing nothing. The "heavy" workout that you do before the strategic deconditioning is the actual source of your growth. The deconditioning may or may not be too long of a recovery time. HIT was not working for you because you needed to rest MORE than 4 days, which is what Mentzer advised for advanced bodybuilders. This is based on the data you have given to me so far. What if Mentzer was right, but you were not properly using his theories? What if your growth under HST is only from an accidental application of proper HIT principles?

Gentlemen, let's not swing too far and miss what is right; the mind-body dichotomy is false. I see this conversation quickly going in the direction of "the mind is all; reject the body." That would be just as incorrect as the corallary you are rejecting. There are no "achievements of the body." Those athletes had to use their minds to control their bodies in a superlative way. Don't downplay their mental efforts and achievements.

The request for that rule was by BlackSabbath. I understand that you're not a mind reader. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I honestly didn't remember when I posted the link the details of the formation of that rule. The point is, that wasn't AT ALL what I wanted your opinion on. I wanted it for the other rules.

Thank you for the advice. I can clear up BlackSabbath's rule. Now, what is your opinion of my rules?