claire

Killing an animal is art? Could you clarify that?

Imogen, yes, I had a few doozies myself (oh, the nightmares it brings back). But I learned even from them. I learned how NOT to think. I learned what were NOT facts. I learned how to go about getting the right answers. And yes, I always got good grades (even from the SOB whom I threw a book at in class!!) But like I said earlier, Women's Studies seems like a strange requirement for graduation. Do guys have to take it as a requirement, as well?

Certainly, it is, Rational (?) Biker. If a person or group cannot tolerate a single difference of opinion withou getting hostile and ganging up on the differing person, there's a problem, and it is not with the person who is disagreeing. As if happens, I, too, disagree strongly with her assessment. So what? We are not clones who all think alike. There will be divergence of opinion. Someone will be wrong. That's life.

Sounds pretty sucky, but calm down. We can't usually control who our teachers, coworkers or bosses are. Some will be worse than others. Time to suck it up and use it as a learning experience on how to deal with people we don't agree with, because those people will be there all of our lives. BTW, I'm surprised that a women's study class is necessary for graduation. You sure? Have you checked to see if you can change it to something else?

All this fuss and hostility over one opinion. Wow. Interesting.

So much has been written about this moderation thing, I'm getting curious. So ... 1. David O. writes: "I think you've accepted at least two false premises (I'll let you mull over what those premises might be). My question for you, though, is why popularity matters to you? " I'm confused. Mindy simply wrote that she was unpopular. That is a statement of fact. Where did she say that it mattered to her? Can David O. explain? 2. When Mindy asks for an explanation (a perfectly reasonable act, I should think), David O says: I'll let you mull over what those premises might be. She is also told by RationalBiker that she will not receive an answer as to why she is considered unsuitable. As a matter of fact, RB states, in effect, that she has a lot of nerve to think she is owed an explanation. Really? Wanting to know answers is bad? I must be very confused So ... moderators do not answer reasonable questions? Why the secrecy? When a person is on the witness stand, he/she has the legal option of not answering, but that surely poses the question of what that person is hiding. So, the question on my mind is, what are the moderators who refuse to answer Mindy's simple questions hiding? I'm sure my asking some reasonable questions will be considered unsuitable. That, by itself, is an indication of a problem. BTW, I don't know Mindy from Adam. I just hate to see bullying.

Softwarenerd, if it's a sacrifice to buy the baby food if mom prefers the hat, isn't she acting "selfishly" (ie, looking out for her preferred interest) by buying the hat and letting the kid go hungry?

I don't know if it's a poor definition, but it is a definition, and one that I know lots of people subscribe to. To just change definitions and expect people to understand is asking for trouble. As for alienating other people, that's my point. By acting with disregard for other people (that's a part of just about every definition I found), you DO alient people. So by acting selfishly (using the dictionary definition), you risk alienation. I don't think that's what Rand had in mind. As a matter of fact, I think it most frequently is in our self-interest to be considerate of people instead of selfish. Take that damn shrimp on that table over there - you'll probably get more out of the evening (like a couple of cool phone numbers) if you hand the platter around rather than "selfishly" hogging the stuff. Rand put a lot of emphasis on selfishness and, in my opinion, not enough on plain considerate behavior toward our fellow man. I mean, take her famous example of the mother with the baby who really, really wants a hat. According to Rand, if she's the kind of mother (good lord!) who prefers the hat to the baby, that's the way for her to go. Look, I don't care if the damn hat gives mama an orgasm, her responsibility is to the kid, first and foremost. Yes, since the kid can't take care of itself, and mom chose to have and raise it, it's the mother's duty (oooh, another hot button word there) to act responsibly. Buck it up, fuck the hat, get the baby food. But really, don't you think that these word definitions (and changes thereof) have caused a lot of confusion among objectivists? Especially when the definitions have totally opposite meanings?

I'm looking at this somewhat differently. I think Rand made a mistake in taking words and tweaking their commonly-used definition. The MErriam-Webster definition of selfish is: 1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> While Rand spoke out for self-interest, she did not indicate that one must have no regard for others. So, when someone hogs all the shrimp at a party and is called selfish, that's perfectly correct. That person has no consideration and is rude. There's no need to find another word. The dictionary already has a perfectly good one. Rand did the same with sacrifice: Here are definitions I found: a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. b. A victim offered in this way. 2. a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. b. Something so forfeited. All definitions I found include the offering to deity. Several (as above) give the definition of forfeiting something to get a GREATER value. These definitions are not about giving up that which is precious for something less precious (although this is included in some minor definitions). As far as I can see, playing with common definitions has led to totally needless discussions, arguments and word-salad. (Just take a look at any objectivist forum) By changing the common usage of words and substituting her own, Rand only made things more confusing. I recall several years ago, on some objectivist forum, a young man was describing an argument he had in a bar with some stranger (already plenty of red flags there!). Seems the bar-mate was a tad liberal. As the "liberal" started to leave, the young objectivist poster, according to his own words, yelled after him: "You're an altruist!" Talk about confusing those present. The objectivist was using (without even defining, in this instance) a word commonly used as a positive and slinging it as an insult. Anyway, I consider playing these word games a mistake which invariably leads to misunderstanding. Just take a look at some of the posts here. So many deal with definitions instead of getting to an actual idea. If you can't even agree on what a word means, there's a problem. And tweaking definitions and using them in a way the rest of the population doesn't doesn't facilitate understanding. Only arguments.

As Mindy has pointed out, this essay is poorly thought out and rambling. Try focusing. Instead of just going on and on, can you summarize your thoughts in, say, a paragraph. I'm a writer. When I do a story, I summarize it in one sentence before I start. A book is summarized in a paragraph. That keeps the idea conherent. Do try it, please.

Ragnar - EXACTLY. That's what it takes to build a relationship. Also, you make a great point I had not thought of before: Rand thought work came first. So that's what she did. Ergo - her relationships (romantic and otherwise suffered severely!) In her books, she kind of describes relationships as "kind of happening." In all of her major fictions, lightening strikes immediately between two people who do not know each other. I think she kind of expected it to be like that. She repeatedly said how much value she put in the "right" look. Nothing about how to sustain a relationship. Sadly for her, she paid the price. EIOUL - No disagreement. Those are your priorities, but we're not (thankfully) made one size fits all. For others (perfectly rational people), a different approach might work. The happiest and most successful couple I ever knew. They split responsibility right down the middle (kind of the old fashioned approach). He works and she takes care of house and kiddies. They totally and absolutely respected each others territory (i.e., the husband never ever would agree to a social engagement before checking with the wife because that was HER forte.) They love and respect each other, they know what to expect, and their marriage is a huge success. Hey, it may not work for everyone, but it works for them. Actually, I think I can see why it does work, since these two don't have the usual competition/arguments people have when both work. I'm not saying this will work for all, but for some, it works great. Actually, it worked fine Rand/O'Connor. She worked, he took care of the house.

Ragnar, I agree that one's major enjoyment doesn't have to come from ones job/career. As a matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say that if you are in a romantic relationship/married/committed/etc., I expect the relationship to be important, i.e., if it's my birthday (unless it's an emergency) I expect my partner to remember and be there. One of the things that has always bothered me about Atlas Shrugged was Rearden's total oblivion to his anniversary. Now, at that point in the story, he hasn't figured out what Lillian's up to. She's just his wife whom he's no longer in love with. As far as I am concerned, a wife has every right to celebrate an anniversary and expect her husband to be there. If that's too much effort, there's no relationship. Period. Also, Rearden seemed to have lost interest in Lillian right after their marriage, yet he does'nt know what went wrong. That kind of makes my point. If you are in a relationship, it has to be important enough for you to get to know to other person and work out any snags. Spending 16 hours a day at the office won't accomplish that. Also, if a productive career is the be-all and end-all, how to you explain Frank O'Connor, who worked (most but apparently not all the time) but can hardly be said to have a career (painting came rather late and wasn't a profitable career for him; more like a hobby.)

What an interesting lecture on morality. Personally, I don't like science fiction, least of all sci fi dealing with dragons and witches, etc. There was a time, however, when I noticed everyone around me reading those Harry Potter books. It was sheer curiosity and nothing else that made me pick up one of those Harry Potters. Now, I am a total fan. Guess what I did was immoral. Guess trying anything new would qualify as immoral since I wouldn't know beforehand if I like it or not. Wow. What a screwy and frightening way of thinking.

Have you considered taking a class?

Zac D, you use the word "corrupted." How much Nietzche have you actually read to be able to say Nietzche is corrupt? Are you basing your question on the fact that others have read/written, or are you personally familiar with the writings of Nietzche.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, TurginAl. Of course we should and must challenge the law. What I meant was that such a challenge usually leads to consequences, and not always good ones.

Jacob, you know what actually moral - to do ones own thinking and figure things out on ones own.

Aleph, no one has used words like evil or trash. As a matter of fact, one of my major problems with Objectivists is how easily the word evil is tossed out. Someone makes a mistake, he/she is automatically evil. That's not my thinking at all. Aside from Hitler and a few others, I really don't think that word applies. People make mistakes, that's all. Mistakes can be corrected. I just think he's a confused kid who's discovered Objectivism and has decided that the world is working against him and is unfair to him. He probably just needs to grow up. Hardly a big deal. (Okay, I'm sure he'll post back saying that he's really a fifty-five year old physician.)

Aleph, no one has used words like evil or trash. As a matter of fact, one of my major problems with Objectivists is how easily the word evil is tossed out. Someone makes a mistake, he/she is automatically evil. That's not my thinking at all. Aside from Hitler and a few others, I really don't think that word applies. People make mistakes, that's all. Mistakes can be corrected. I just think he's a confused kid who's discovered Objectivism and has decided that the world is working against him and is unfair to him. He probably just needs to grow up. Hardly a big deal. (Okay, I'm sure he'll post back saying that he's really a fifty-five year old physician.)

Mindy, sorry, I'm confused. What volunteerism values? He didn't volunteer. He was sentenced to community service because he broke the law (it's beside the point whether the law is right or wrong.) That was a punishment. It wasn't his place to agree or disagree with it. He needed to serve the time. If he wanted to challenge the law, he lost. The law's a powerful bitch, which is why most of us abide by it. Personally, I think he's trying to take the phylosophic high road after being careless with his license renewal and then petulant about being made to live with the consequences.

Rudmer, that was exactly why I was desperately trying to get him to answer a few concretes. He wouldn't do it.

You were wrong because you broke the law. You may disagree with the law, but you have to take the consequences of your actions when you break the law. Stop whining about being a poor victim and get a new drivers license and try to do better next time.

Jacob, do you really think the "public" will have a better understanding of such abstractions? You gotta have a whole lotta smart people where you live. Look, I honestly think you like to lose yourself in the abstract to keep from dealing with concretes. Just a guess, but a good one. So, give concretes a chance. For instance, let's start small. What are some of the specifics that these candidates stand for? Can you list two each?

Ben, it seems you've only known the girl for two weeks (in my opinion, not enough time for her to be staying over, but that neither here nor there.). Two weeks is a very short period to time. If there's someone else in the picture, of course she's going to be conflicted in her feelings. You two can hardly know each other at this point, and maybe that's what you should be concentrating on. Give her some space, share a meal, go to a movie, yada yada yada. Get to know each other, for pete's sake. And did you expect her to come without a past. There's an old boyfriend in her life whom she still has regards for. What's so weird about that? God may have made the world in seven days, but as far as I know, he still doesn't have a girlfriend, so creating a relationship just takes a bit more time.

Actually - fine questions. Here's the problem: given your scenario of addressing three candidates, the questions are extremely broad and abstract. Nothing wrong with that, but your candidates will blink and have no idea what your talking about. So - can you get a bit (okay, a lot) more specific and concrete. For instances: High property taxes in our city have it difficult for potential first-time homeowners to buy property. Do you have a plan to address this problem? That's a concrete and specific question tha can be answered. First, find out what your candidates stand for on specific issues. Then, address those specific issues.