Hairnet

The Japanese search terms aren't even that weird. The big thing I see about Japan is that they only want to see other Japanese people have sex, with seven search phrases referencing Japan and one search phrase being "Asian". I can't say if this preference is normal for other cultures or ethnic groups. If you exclude references to ethnicity, then you get the terms Wife, Milf, Teen, Massage, Anime, and once again Hentai. Japan isn't any more strange than the USA according to the stats of this site. Sexual repression = perversion is an interesting theory but I wouldn't use this site for trying to judge foreign cultures. It probably won't capture all of the important information. I think we would need Google's information to get really detailed. Then you have to deal with language barriers and the fact that internet use isn't common in every country.

http://www.pornmd.com/sex-search# Here you go Robert. Its not a sampling of aggregators but I think it works. Top porn search terms by country. America's being at the time of writing... 1.Teen 2. Milf 3. College 4. Creampie 5, Massage 6. POV 7. Asian 8. Compilation 9. Amateur 10. Hentai The strangest thing on that list is hentai, which doesn't actually involve people having sex. Americans are kind of tame compared to other countries. Look around you will see some funny stuff and some scary stuff. There are four phrases in China's top ten referencing Japan. Iraq has "pain" as its fourth top search term and "classic forced sex" as its fifth.

That was a misquote on my part, my bad. He said "any country". "The World" shouldn't be in there. I am not able to edit that post any longer.

It doesn't help that democrats and "anti-racists" like Tim Wise brag about the end of republican politics due to coming demographic shifts. However his statement sounds like something that would come from a protectionist or a white nationalist, not the intellectual heir of Ayn Rand.

Its not a secret if someone else knows. I agree it sounds like she had an unreasonable expectations when it came to this. If the allegations in the story are true though the coaches used that information in an extremely inappropriate way.

I don't see how Objectivism and Critical Theory are similar. OH EXCEPT THAT JEWS ARE IN CHARGE OF BOTH MOVEMENTS!!!!! I am just kidding. I have seriously had someone throw that at me before. What similarities are you talking about?

http://www.peikoff.com/2014/02/24/you-claim-obama-is-a-nihilist-but-isnt-hope-and-change-a-slogan-of-benevolence/ ** See discussion below

I realize since English is your second language I should start posting definitions for you. Trust does involve some subjectivity, because people on the whole will form incorrect opinions. However trust is not subjective in its entirety, it is a form of reputation. This is a conversation from Game of Thrones where a lord explains to his son the difference between opinions and reputation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47MazYDnmaU It depends. If Jim is just a normal dude living in a modern social democracy he should promote virtue among the people because society is ultimately controlled by the masses (even if they relinquish it to elites). Acts of injustice of any kind will ruin trust in you specifically and others in general, so they must be avoided. Standing up to acts of injustice when possible should also be done as that is the best way to promote trust. If Jim lives in a place without a decent justice system he should consult Machiavelli or Robert Greene. Broken societies involve constant politicking, betrayal,guerrilla warfare, and eventually outright war. There isn't justice in war, the only thing you need to do is win it and establish a free society as soon as possible.

Every feminist claims to be sex positive. In fact sex-negativity is more of personal problem than an ideology. My catholic school abstinence brainwashing was very sex positive so as long as sex was had under the right conditions. The problem that most people have with sex-work in general is that is is commercialized. not that is is sex.

Sex workers are shit on by the law and the media. Its bigoted and irrational. Essentially people outlaw prostitution, then they place a stigma on it. Then everyone acts like its proof of the evils of the profession when only the most desperate people go into it. However I think she is going to find herself abandoned by feminists. Gail Dines doesn't want to hear about porn stars who are happy with their careers.

Well you did not state that "Life was the standard of value". You claimed that life is worth living, which from which I assumed that we were orienting the whole discussion on how specifically rights encourage life. This is the definition of trust I liked that I took from a social sciences article. This is the article although I can not say that I agree with everything in it. http://www.ldv.ei.tum.de/en/research/fidens/interpersonal-trust/

You are missing my point. Genuine, rational, trust is the result of privacy and the protection of rights. In the past people couldn't trust people outside their in group, and would thus place far too much trust in their in group despite what problems they may present. If you want to only include people in your life who have merit, then you need to be sure that people of merit aren't actually the pawns of some threat. If there was only your kin group, and everyone outside that group was seen as a potential threat who was under the threat of a dangerous prince, you can't go looking around for merit. Even if your brother is irrational or incompetent you may just give him responsibility based on the idea that at the very least he won't try to rape your mother or kill you in your sleep like some hired foreigner may be. Without the protection of rights there is only paranoia and the war of all against all. A basic example is of the idea of secularism. If people promise not to hurt one another over their religion and these promises are kept, people of all religions can discard religion as an important factor when dealing with strangers and then benefit from one another. If there isn't that principle then commerce is restrained. A catholic will be hestitant to move to a protestant city or nation because he may be scapegoated or arbitrarily punished for his affiliation. The same goes with ethnicity. England and Ireland suffered all the way into the 20th century because of the brutal treatment of the Irish by the British. Terrorism based on religious and ethnic conflicts seems like something that should exist in the third world or eastern Europe but not in the west and even today there are still IRA splinter groups that are active. Here is a contemporary example. I have noticed the rise of racism on the internet over the last five years. Sadly many of these people now borrow pro-commerce ideas from classical liberals. They see the state as violating rights, and because some state policies are based off of leftist race bating, those white supremacists see themselves as besieged by minorities who want to rob their wealth. Instead of seeing immigrants as potential value, they view them as democratic voters. Some blame the violence in Yugoslavia in the past or Iraq today on the same principle. No one protected rights in their country, and oppression was really the only thing that worked for preventing violence. Democracy in both countries comprises not of people attempting to persuade one another what the best social systems are but of ethnic and religious groups fighting for dominance. I think these people are irrational, but if the state was more consistent in its protection of rights their arguments would be far less persuasive. I don't think that p0 has a strategic application to social interaction. p0 presents a goal, and you can't just deduce the means of achieving a goal from the goal itself. You can only freely associate with people to the degree that rights are protected. Without free association the only way you are going to get people to associate with you is through coercion, and if you are powerful enough to coerce others then it still in your best interests to maintain as much free association as possible, as this is the way wealth is generated.

Well first of all the abilities you speak of allow for strategy. Most of history is brutal warfare and enslavement. Humans existed in biological competition or in dominance hierarchies. However, politics is much more about promoting privacy. Many people would call this concept "trust". The horrible conditions of past ages result from people simply not having any reason to think that anyone outside their kind group was worth negotiating with. They may have been right in most cases as their opponents were right about them. Civilization requires that people be able to not view one another as inherent threats, and this can't be done without rights. Societies that fail to promote trust are easy to conquer and have the potential for rebellion and civil war. Rights I think take these into consideration. If you ask "Why should I be part of a society at all?", when living in the wilderness with a small group may be truly enjoyable and worthwhile experience, you will see why we need rights. If a society takes your stuff, has the potential to kill you for an arbitrary reason, or decides to imprison you for an arbitrary reason, then you would fight very violently against that society or leave it. Almost everyone else fundamentally has the same reactions. They don't want to always be in fear of having their lives ruined. Assurances that this won't happen and a policy clearly enforcing this is the surest way to build trust.

Scarcity. Pre-civilized people lived in a very different way than we do. Population explosions and mass migrations caused conflict between alien groups to fight and enslave one another over thousands of years. It is sad but most conflicts in history are born from irrationality, ignorance, and poverty. Short life spans and a constant fight for survival among foreign and untrustworthy groups doesn't encourage the serious study of politics, but it cam force the development of civilization which can bear the fruits of serious philosophy and the theoretical study of how society can best be organized. To quote Rand The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system. As an example of philosophy’s function, political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week—it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose any rationing on anything. - Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

There are a lot of things you can do in this paper. This is a pretty big topic and you will have to do your own research but i can give you some leads. 1) You can point out examples of private infrastructure. They exist for sure. 2) You can look at how government infrastructure is rooted in the military historically and show how this affects our economy. 3) You can look into how big business manipulates imminent domain laws, discrediting the idea that somehow these laws achieve a public good. The Institute for Justice has done cases on these that show how ridiculous this stuff can get. 4) Look into how government infrastructure damages the ecology in favor of connected interests.

There are pacifist religions, they just aren't every very powerful. Jainism is an example. I actually notice a real pacifist streak in most religions. Leo Tolstoy represents this aspect of Christianity by combining it with leftism. Buddhism also has a reputation of eschewing violence, although Buddhism has morphed into extremely militant forms. Pacifism is such a weak idea though it never survives. The following is an article about an the Church's attempt to stop violence in the religious caste. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Truce_of_God The military caste needs a philosophy, but they aren't irrational enough to put down arms, so they adopt the parts of the religion that help them the most in their mind. If you want to know what motivates warriors, look at things like Chivalry and Bushido, which seem to be responses by the military caste to the rest of their societies belief systems, Catholicism and Neo-Confucianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido Islam didn't seem to have any tension between its ideology and its warrior caste. They conquered Spain, North Africa, and West Asia in about 40 years. Its Amazing really.

Neuroscience answers completely different questions than epistemology. There may be some interesting connections to be made but really it won't be appropriate most of the time to bring up philosophy unless someone says something really off the rails. If someone for example started making claims about philosophy based on some finding, then you could perhaps correct them or show how that doesn't work.

Its important to remember that it is cognitively impossible to deal with more than a couple hundred relationships. The tendency in history is for people to trust their in-group and not trust those outside of their group. Our natural, undeveloped, capacity for empathy doesn't seem to be all that great and promoting morality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number Not all people are equally empathetic, yet it seems like it is a capacity that can be altered by one's education. I have read about parenting methods, having two parents, reading fiction, and even unsupervised outdoor activity being correlated with an increase in the amount of empathy a child develops. A well developed sense of empathy is useful for maintaining a good network of secondary and primary relationships. Empathy is even important when interacting with strangers. However this modern humanity is only possible because children can freely associate without violence against them and that most people can read books at a young age. Free association forces children to learn lessons about how other people can be valuable and how they can bring value to a relationship. Fiction and Non-Fiction have been widely available since the invention of the printing press, and some historians suspect it was the printing press that brought about the enlightenment. By bringing about fiction that showed how other kinds of people lived and books that enhanced the reasoning skills of the readers.

I watched it. It has some interesting themes. A critical moment is when an officer (Levi) challenges the protagonist (Erin) to put his faith in himself or put his faith in the military, and then he says that he doesn't know which choice he should make, but that he has to make a choice even though no one will know the outcome.

I pay attention to this forum because I am interested in iidea and the people who talk about issues here are one of the few groups that I find to be level headed. I don't go to this forum because of the Objectivism label. I go because it is well regulated and the threads are generally interesting. It sounds like you aren't interested in talking about ideas, which isn't a huge problem as long as you have ideas. There are a lot of people out there who can help you think through things, there is no need to go on a forum. Objectivism itself is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I didn't live the same experiences she did, and I wasn't educated in a similar way to her. While I can certainly appreciate her ideas, my ideas can only really be formed on my own thinking. Her writing serves as a source of inspiration, criticism, explanation, and demonstration. However you can not possibly contain the information necessary to be truly informed on five branches of philosophy, much less the special scientific claims of history, psychology, anthropology, and economics. The subjects on which Rand wrote fill volumes of books written by 1000s of years of authors. Being informed on each subject is going to take me a very long time, and that information will be used to build more sophisticated and perhaps different concepts about the world. Any knowledge I gain that I didn't gain from reading Rand is not part of of Objectivsim even if it is consistent with Objectivsim. So the purpose of Rand's philosophy to me is my personal (intellectual) growth.

Most of them will never have their ideas realized in reality so it doesn't really matter. What I have learned though is that it doesn't matter how absurd an idea is, there is a group of people who will seriously argue for it. An example is a somewhat popular vlogger on youtube named Immendham (or something like that) who stated in a lengthy podcast that it would be ethical to push a button that would end all life because it would put an end to all suffering, and that he himself would be willing to do this. The Green-Anarchist types who want to end civilization and technology are pretty bad also. In terms of real world political movements, its difficult to say who is more evil than who because of historical circumstance. People who identify as National Socialists on the internet today are probably not as bad as people who Identify themselves on the internet as "Third World Maoists". I actually saw one of these people get on the front page of Reddit, and I was disgusted. There are active terrorist groups in India who support a variation of that ideology. I am not aware of National Socialist terrorist groups, I am under the impression that National Socialists just mostly do protests and troll the internet.

Debates can be zero-sum though. It would be analogous to gambling or a duel.Considering how hostile Brook and Chomsky would be to one another, I would guess it would be that sort of debate. So you wouldn't agree to the Debate because someone both people are gaining from it, but because you hope to make the other lose something. @Ninth Doctor I don't think Rand ever published material on the Pinochet. Chomsky did.

So I listened to the following Yaron Brook podcast question. http://www.peikoff.com/2014/01/13/to-yb-what-is-your-opinion-of-noam-chomsky/ The questioner asks if Brook would be interested in a debate with Noam Chomsky about the Israel-Arab Conflict. Yaron says in response "No, it will never ever happen, over my dead body will I get up on stage with a scum like Noam Chosmky... I would never sanction his existence his existence by getting up on stage with him". His reasoning is Chomsky's denial of the Cambodian genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky Linguist Noam Chomsky was among the academics who attempted to refute Barron, Paul, Ponchaud, and Lacouture. On June 6, 1977, he and his collaborator, Edward S. Herman, published a review of Barron and Paul's, Ponchaud's, and Porter's books in The Nation. He called Barron and Paul's book "third rate propaganda" and part of a "vast and unprecedented propaganda campaign" against the Khmer Rouge. He said Ponchaud was "worth reading" but unreliable. Chomsky said that refugee stories of Khmer Rouge atrocities should be treated with great "care and caution" as no independent verification was available. By contrast, Chomsky was highly favorable toward the book by Porter and Hildebrand, which portrayed Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge as a "bucolic idyll."[10] Chomsky also opined that the documentation of Gareth Porter's book was superior to that of Ponchaud's -- although almost all the references cited by Porter came from Khmer Rouge documents while Ponchaud's came from interviews with Cambodian refugees.[11] I think Brook's reaction to Chomsky is fascinating. For one, Chomsky is a sacred cow. Brook has a lot of reasons to hate the guy for sure, and its interesting to hear him so strongly condemn this man. However, what I don't understand is why Brook wouldn't debate this guy. I would love to see Chomsky get smashed in a debate by Brook, and I don't think that it would be sanctioning him to do so. As someone who has debated White Nationalists and Nazis, and much worse people, I don't think I have done anything wrong in doing so. I think I often make convincing arguments that actually dissuade people from those beliefs. I find that his "Condemnation" tactic just allows opposition to say "Here is a man who can not argue with my beliefs!". I think it is important to reach out to people who are confused, or perhaps sitting on the fence, or maybe rational people who may have come to some very wrong conclusions. Why wouldn't a debate with Chomsky be worth it? It just seems like bad propaganda.

SteveTheRAWMAN STRAWMAN Forgive me, I am not sober. Anyways... If this conversation is serious, we have to ask to what degree animals can actually respect human rights. . Cognitive abilities aren't as important to this discussion as people usually make it. I would like for Elephants to not be threatened by violence, but they need an environment where they won't come into conflict with human property rights. I view this as similar to the conflict between nomads and civilized people. The most realistic way for these beings to get help is to get a human patron who can establish a large area of land to sustain these creatures efficiently. I think this is very feasible because there is wilderness all over the world.

If they guy was extremely impaired also would that change circumstances? That is, if two people are so drunk that they couldn't consent, then was anyone raped?