Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ScarlettCatherwood

  • Birthday 07/08/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

2145 profile views

ScarlettCatherwood's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. This really has no significance, I'm just curious and words get me hot. What are some your favorite words to say, based on the way they sound and the way they feel rolling off the tongue? One of mine is litany. It's very melodic and easy. Tinkling is another, though I'm not sure why. But my all-time favorite word to say and hear: cusp. The combination of sounds is almost too much for such a short word, but it still sounds amazing. Anyone else? Or am I the only weird person who thinks about these things?
  2. Woops, my bad! And I agree, it wasn't just because Ayn Rand said so. But a lot of people, even with the mentioned context, still say otherwise. So I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, arguing that even if the context was dropped it would still be the same way. And I will stop hijacking this thread now.
  3. ENOUGH of this already! Roark did not rape Dominique. Do you want to know why Roark did not rape Dominique? Because Ayn Rand said so. Ayn Rand created these characters in a fictionalized universe in a novel. She is their God, metaphorically speaking. She created them. She knows everything these charcters think, feel, desire, etc. Even if she did not make it clear to you or anyone else. These are characters, they are not real people, they don't think, feel, or desire anything Ayn Rand does not want them to. The same applies to all characters in all fiction, any piece ever created. If it looks like rape, but the author says it's not, then that's it. Maybe it doesn't look like it, maybe the author did a really shitty job of showing that, but that's it. As for Peikoff's statement, I'm with Eioul on this, for now. I'm going to wait a week or two to see if he clarifies, but if not I can only take him at what he said (which was a tad bit disturbing).
  4. I'm curious. To what do you object in the previous answers?
  5. Objectivism does not denounce instant gratification, in an of itself. It denounces the pursuit of instant gratification without any thought to what the consequences may be. Otherwise known as Hedonism, I believe. iTunes is a particularly good example. Yes, you can buy an entire album, at home, in less than thirty minutes instead of driving to the store. But, are there any negative consequences of this action? Is this going to hinder your life in any way? Hopefully, you've thought about this before you downloaded the album, and not only that, but came to the conclusion that it wasn't harmful to your life. I have to second Trebor on this. What does one have to do with the other? Concrete (in this sense) is the opposite of abstract. It has nothing to do with the short term.
  6. Finally. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.
  7. While I check my e-mail everyday, I don't think he's ever checked his. This is one of the reasons I like using Facebook. I have several forms of communication (e-mail, instant message, status update) available to me in one location. I can switch from to the other with ease. And the whole messaging set up makes it faster and easier to reply than standard e-mail. Eiuol, I don't remember if you said you'd used it or not, but even if you have you might try creating an account just as a test. See if you like the convenience of it, or if the whole thing still bothers you. I'd alslo like to note that the quality of your friends on Facebook has a great impact on the quality of your experience.
  8. The key factor here is how you would use it. The way other people use it should really be of no singificance to you. You suppose you could use it for lengthier dicussions? Then do so. I do. A very good friend of mine joined the Marines a few months ago, and we have not stopped having lengthy discussions, mostly about philosophy and politics, through personal messaging on Facebook. In fact, it's our main form of communication with each other. And yes, we use proper puncuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar, as we have since we were in grade school. My experiences with it have shown me that people really don't change their way of thinking much from using it. People who have always written in complete sentences with proper grammar in any manner of writing (including texting), like my friend and myself, continue to do so on Facebook. People who have always shortened things (u, 2, r, etc.), even in regular writing, continue to do so on Facebook. For the record, all of this is completely optional. Not only do you not have to share this with people, you don't have to put it on there at all. As mentioned above, it can most certainly be used for one-on-one communication. It can even be used strictly in this manner. If you don't post a status, it can't be shared with anyone, can it? Of course, face-to-face is a different matter altogether, but I suppose that's not what you meant as you would probably be denouncing the telephone and e-mail as well. As for getting angry when someone assumes you use Facebook, I can understand that. But the reason they assume that is because of the number of people that do use it. They're not saying that you should just because everyone else does, just that they thought you did because of it's mass popularity. However, if they are saying that, isn't it a good opportunity to start a conversation about the fallacy of the appeal to popularity, which, by the way, includes anti-conformists who refuse to do things because of it's popularity? And are much more infuriating, in my opinion. The bottom line is if you don't like Facebook, don't use it.
  9. I'm just going to comment on the ones I agree with, completely or partially. "I am a woman, and that no doubt means a lot of things. It means I'm similar to all other women in many respects and probably different in many, but most important, it means I am not a man. I don't think like a man, feel like a man, or, in many respects, act like a man." I would like this quote more if it weren't for the last sentence. Being of a certain gender does not mean someone will act, think, or feel a certain way. "We know we can win the boy-girl game only when you win too. Nothing could be dumber than a battle of the sexes." "Every woman knows — or ought to know — that sexiness is not incompatible with brains and capability. . . . It takes more than average brains to be truly sexy." No-brainers. "We enjoy being treated like a mistress. . . . Playing female to a man's maleness is something every healthy woman enjoys. . . . We don't feel 'put down' when you come on with some good old-fashioned chivalry. It tells us that you recognize what we want you to recognize: that we are not 'one of the boys'; we are women. We like it, and we're glad you like it. We want to keep those sex differences." I've italicized the parts I agree with, although I'd replace every 'we' with an 'I.' From previous posts I believe this one has more to do with opinion. Or at least it does until I have a better understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas on gender roles. I certainly do not want to be considered one of the boys. I'm a woman, and I'd like for you to know it, even if there isn't any romantic interest. Also, I don't mind chivalry. Perhaps my conception of chivalry is wrong, but I don't see how it's anything other than a man being polite to a woman. If a man held a door open for another man, what would we call it? Politeness. Same goes if it were a woman holding the door for a man, or another woman. Why does a man being polite to a woman get it's own special definition? Unless of course, chivalry is politeness + arrogance = a man feeling superior to a woman because he's a man. However, I've never thought of it this way. And when a man pulls out a woman's chair for her I doubt it's because he feels that she's incapable of doing it herself. So which concept is right? Is the second a package-deal? Or am I incorrect in my conception of chivalry? I'm not trying to be rude, and maybe I'm knitpicking, but how does talking political history make you one of the boys? I agree completely with this. To say that being a woman isn't important, that I'm just a person, is silly. Yes I'm a person. And a woman, a nineteen-year-old, a dog-owner, and an Ayn Rand fan. Some of these aren't as important to my identity as others, but they still make up the person that I am. I'm still not entirely sure myself what Ayn Rand meant by hero-worship, but I don't believe it was this. According to freedictionary.com worship means: the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object. To worship something is to revere it, in this case a sacred object, a value of yours. It says nothing about obeying or seeking guidance and leadership from the thing one is revering.
  10. I'm moving to Albuquerque, New Mexico next week to attend UNM and was wondering if there were any Objectivists in the area. It's pretty lonely out here in Western Oklahoma. I've never met another person who considers themselves an Objectivist, or who has even read any Ayn Rand (except maybe the lady at the little bookstore a few towns over who seemed really pleased when I bought The Fountainhead, and reminded me about the essay contest). So. Any Ayn Rand fans out here?
  11. No, I don't know Brian0918 at all. And my arguement is basically the same as bluecherry's. This, as well as what bluecherry bolded in their previous post, made me believe you were talking about the posts in this thread, and Brian's was the only one I saw that could possibly deserve that response.
  12. What makes you think I have no right to judge them? I have a right to judge anyone I choose in any way I choose. Now, whether that judgement is accurate or not is a different story. I can only assume this is referring to Brian0918's post. If it's not, then just ignore this. However, if this is the post you're referring to, I'd like to point out that he never said the rights of the parents to have children should be taken away. He expressed his belief that they wouldn't make very good parents, based on the fact that they are putting the decision of whether or not to have their baby up for vote by complete strangers, therefore, were he to vote, he would vote for them to abort. Feel free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong, Brian. Also, I didn't completely understand the socialized medicine bit (or at least I don't think I did). Are you trying to say that he advocates socialized medicine?
  13. I've been struggling with this type of thing virtually all of my life, at least when it comes to my peers. In college, it's just gotten worse. However, I came across this quote in a silly article I read about a week ago. This has really helped me to stay focused on me and the things that I have yet to do and accomplish. This is my world, they just happen to be here. And if you want a laugh, here's a link to the article. The quote carries an entirely different meaning for the author, and I thought it was comical. http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/blogs/smitten/2010/11/7-guys-you-should-never-date-s.html
  14. And, with the restrictions you advocate, what happens if they do deny emplyment to someone based on race or sex? They either go to jail, or must comply with the restrictions and hire someone they do not wish to hire. Like is proposed in the statement below. Both of which involve force.
  • Create New...